The 2012 Presidential Debates: 3rd debate

[SV Fan]

But Ohio isn't nearly as important in this election as it was in 2004. There are very real routes to the White House even with an Ohio loss. I'd say if anything, Colorado and Wisconsin are the most important swing states at this point.

I think Nate Silver said there is a 7% chance somebody wins the electoral vote without winning Ohio

 

[Paradoxium]

I think Nate Silver said there is a 7% chance somebody wins the electoral vote without winning Ohio

Nate Silver still has credibility? I thought this clown projected Democrats would retain all seats in the House in 2010. And Republicans would lose the House back in 2011. Most people who use Nate the Great tend to be partisans. He borders on pseudo science.

 

[bell110]

I'm kind of hoping Obama wins the electorial vote, but Romney wins the popular vote.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm kind of hoping Obama wins the electorial vote, but Romney wins the popular vote.

I am hoping for that myself.

1. I would love to see an honest debate about getting rid of the electoral vote
2. It would just be funny watching Republican talking heads explode about the unfairness of the system(completely ignoring 2000)

 

[Kelly]

Well, with such a population shift from the North, Northeast to the South....that would be an interesting proposal.

 

[SV Fan]

Well, with such a population shift from the North, Northeast to the South....that would be an interesting proposal.

Well there is 2 reasons I think changing it to Popular vote will never pass

1. It has to pass the Senate by a 60-40 vote. Given the electoral vote gives smaller states much more say in an actual election then a 1 vote = 1 vote system, I am guessing we will get a lot of nos from smaller states. I can see changing to the popular vote passing in the House fairly easily, the Senate not so much

2. Chances are if you use the popular vote system voter turnout will increase anywhere from 5-10%(with voter drives in all states and people who don't bother voting because they live in states they feel their vote is meaningless all of a sudden feeling part of the system). One of the 2 parties will realize that more of the "new voters" a popular vote creates will not benefit them and they will put the kibosh on that

All that being said an angry Republican base if Romney wins popular vote but loses Electoral college might be the closest we can get to having an actual discussion about the voting system.

 

[bell110]

I am hoping for that myself.

1. I would love to see an honest debate about getting rid of the electoral vote
2. It would just be funny watching Republican talking heads explode about the unfairness of the system(completely ignoring 2000)

I agree, it would be fun watching Republicans throw a fit. But on the flip side, that might get old real quick, so part of me also wants Obama to win "far and square".

After all, with these voter suppression laws, which ever way the elections go, I think the losing team will call shenanigans. If Obama loses, we'll hear about 80 year old black woman and life long American citizens with hispanic names being turned away from polls. If Obama wins, we'll hear about dead people, pets, fictional characters, and people who can't speak English saying their name is Mike Johnson, and how Democrats allowed these hoards of fraudulent votes to happen.

 

[Marx]

...this whole popular vote vs. electoral vote scenario is bringing back very bad memories of the 2000 election.

 

[Schlosser85]

...this whole popular vote vs. electoral vote scenario is bringing back very bad memories of the 2000 election.

That was like three weeks of sheer insanity.

 

[Marx]

It was horrible. It would seem oddly poetic if it happened again but with Obama being the victor this time.

In any case, I do think there will be some serious conversations about the entire system if that scenario becomes a reality again.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Something tells me neither side will take losing gracefully.

 

[SV Fan]

...this whole popular vote vs. electoral vote scenario is bringing back very bad memories of the 2000 election.

For argument sake I don't think the popular vote vs electoral vote was the issue with the 2000 election. it was the fact that things in Florida seemed rather fishy, and it didn't help that the SCOTUS seemed to judge it on a partisan basis

I think Most Democrats would concede if Gore lost in Florida by like 20,000 votes and not make an issue of the popular vote and accept rules are rules

 

[Marx]

I think Nate Silver said there is a 7% chance somebody wins the electoral vote without winning Ohio

Yeah. Good luck winning the presidency without Ohio. It's not an easy task and has been impossible to do since 1960.

Something tells me neither side will take losing gracefully.

I don't think either side will lose gracefully either.

For argument sake I don't think the popular vote vs electoral vote was the issue with the 2000 election. it was the fact that things in Florida seemed rather fishy, and it didn't help that the SCOTUS seemed to judge it on a partisan basis

I think Most Democrats would concede if Gore lost in Florida by like 20,000 votes and not make an issue of the popular vote and accept rules are rules

The Florida system was definitely fishy but wasn't it the first time one candidate one the popular vote and another won the electoral vote? I'm drawing a blank...

 

[SV Fan]

The Florida system was definitely fishy but wasn't it the first time one candidate one the popular vote and another won the electoral vote? I'm drawing a blank...

I don't know the other 2 but I heard it's happened 3 times

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege_2.htm

In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

 

[Kelly]

It has happened 4 times


John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush

 

[Marx]

Thank you.

 

[Matt]

Yeah. Good luck winning the presidency without Ohio. It's not an easy task and has been impossible to do since 1960.

It hasn't been impossible, it just hasn't happened. It is not like Ohio has been the key swing state in every election since 1960. I swear, Ohians are so dramatic about the "So goes Ohio," thing.

This election: Romney takes Ohio and Florida....Obama wins Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire or Iowa, Obama wins the election. Conversely, if Romney wins Colorado, Virginia and Iowa or New Hampshire, Romney wins the election (as Chuck Todd pointed out on Meet the Press this morning, it is a real possibility according to recent polls). Ohio's relevance in this election is shrinking by the day. The path to electoral victory this time around is going through Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado. Not Ohio and Florida like the past three.

 

[Excel]

But Ohio isn't nearly as important in this election as it was in 2004. There are very real routes to the White House even with an Ohio loss. I'd say if anything, Colorado and Wisconsin are the most important swing states at this point.

I don't know. Wisconsin & Colorado combined are 19 votes, to Ohios 18. Maybe not as important as 2004, but it has to be the most critical swing state at this point. Ohio is critical because, should Romney win Ohio, he would need only 1 more state of -Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa- to go his way and win the election. I think you are right in that Ohio is not necessarily "winner take all" like it essentially was in 2004, but I would say the odds STRONGLY, STRONGLY favor the winner. There are routes to the White House without it, but they are complicated.

Def. a trend worth noting over the past week - forget Obama's leads in Ohio or Wisconsin being uncertain. Romneys lead in Florida seems to be shrinking. Before Mitt tries to win Ohio, he has to hold Florida's 29 votes. The whole discussion is moot if Obama takes Florida. Rassmusens poll last week had Mitt +5, this week +2. PPD last week had Mitt +2, this week they have O +1. Obama lead Florida for most of the pre debate campaign. Momentum seems to be heading Obama's way in Florida, though Romney still holds a tiny lead.

If Obama takes Florida, the election is essentially over. Mitt's projected total plummets from 248 to 219. Check this: If Obama takes Florida, Romney cannot win. Mitt needs to win all of

-Ohio
-Nevada
-Wisconsin
-Iowa
-Colorado
-Virginia
-North Carolina
-New Hampshire

In order to TIE, at 269-269. If Obama can win Florida + any one of those states, he will the election. Yeah, Romney needs to win more states than he currently leads in. But before any of that, he MUST hold his lead in Florida.

 

[SV Fan]

It hasn't been impossible, it just hasn't happened. It is not like Ohio has been the key swing state in every election since 1960. I swear, Ohians are so dramatic about the "So goes Ohio," thing.

This election: Romney takes Ohio and Florida....Obama wins Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire or Iowa, Obama wins the election. Conversely, if Romney wins Colorado, Virginia and Iowa or New Hampshire, Romney wins the election (as Chuck Todd pointed out on Meet the Press this morning, it is a real possibility according to recent polls). Ohio's relevance in this election is shrinking by the day. The path to electoral victory this time around is going through Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado. Not Ohio and Florida like the past three.

Assuming Obama wins Nevada(which is looking very likely) he will need 27 electoral votes to get over 270. Much easier but not impossible to win the Electoral College with Ohio. All that being said win Florida, game over. lol

 

[Matt]

BTW, an electoral college tie is VERY possible this time around. Despite Obama having a slim lead in Wisconsin (2 points, well within the margin of error), I have read that Ryan's ground game within the state is prepared to deliver it.

Consider this scenario:

Obama takes Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa

Romney takes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin

Both are at 269. I won't lie, the political nerd in me really wants to see it happen. I have my doubts, because I ultimately think that Iowa and New Hampshire will be split....but I'd love to see it. And it further goes to show how unimportant Ohio is this time around. There are so many REAL paths to victory (or draw) without Ohio in play.

 

[Excel]

Forget Reagan. I think the history repeating itself is the primary season. Romney was the favorite the whole time, but whenever he laid off the attacks, and let his opponents back into the game he dropped in polls. Whenever Romney played offense, his opponents always dropped in the polls.

Romney certainly did well in the first debate, but the primary reason for his surge was moreso due to Obama's hideous performance. If the Obama of debates 2 and 3 show up in debate 1, but Mitt has the exact same performance, he does not get such a surge. It was no how impressive Romney personally was, as much as it was the difference between the two.

Just like Obama got an inflated, exaggerated lead following the combo of 1) the DNC, and 2) 47% comments, and eventually came crashing back to Earth - go not be surprised if that is all that is happening to Romney at the moment. Following first debate, gets big, exaggerated lead, and then comes falling back to Earth.

 

[SV Fan]

In terms of Ohio here is how I see it

If Obama wins Ohio it's practically game over. Basically Romney will have to win one of Nevada(which is almost leans Obama) or Wisconsin plus most the other swing states

If Romney wins Ohio, Obama has a slight chance but he will have to rack up alot of the other swing states(basically his easiest path without Ohio would be Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa and either Virginia or Colorado and New Hampshire)

 

[Matt]

Assuming Obama wins Nevada(which is looking very likely) he will need 27 electoral votes to get over 270. Much easier but not impossible to win the Electoral College with Ohio. All that being said win Florida, game over. lol

Yeah, if Obama takes Florida, it is over.

And I don't deny that an Ohio win makes it easier, but it also isn't the crucial swing state this time around. That would be Colorado, IMO. My prediction is this....

Romney takes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and either New Hampshire or Iowa.

Obama takes Ohio, PA, and either Iowa or New Hampshire....and probably Wisconsin, though like I said, a lot of pundits are starting to sense that Ryan has a good ground game going there. But I digress, let's assume for the sake of the discussion that Obama takes Wisconsin.

That means this election is going through Colorado. Colorado is the big prize this time around, IMO. Not Ohio.

 

[Matt]

In terms of Ohio here is how I see it

If Obama wins Ohio it's practically game over. Basically Romney will have to win one of Nevada(which is almost leans Obama) or Wisconsin plus most the other swing states

If Romney wins Ohio, Obama has a slight chance but he will have to rack up alot of the other swing states(basically his easiest path without Ohio would be Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa and either Virginia or Colorado and New Hampshire)

But it isn't, not even a little bit. All he needs to do is win either Iowa OR New Hampshire and Colorado. Or Wisconsin and Colorado. Same with Obama. As Chuck Todd pointed out on Meet the Press this morning, Ohio's importance is shrinking each and every day and it is why the campaigns are shifting focus away from Ohio.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I don't see Obama taking Florida. At all.