Monday, March 10, 2008

Reality check: Who will gain enough electoral votes to win back the White House?

According to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (a Clinton supporter), it's Clinton:

Countering Tom Daschle's "50-state plan" for an Obama victory, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell tells NBC's Tim Russert that Senator Clinton is the candidate that can bring in the electoral votes needed to put a Democrat in the White House in 2009, based on the states the two have already won in the primaries.

Clinton has won the most support using the electoral college as a guide, says Rendell, with Clinton garnering about 260 electoral votes' worth of state victories, versus Obama's roughly 190.

Clinton is strongest in the four states Democrats "must win;" Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan; in order to win the presidency, says Rendell. Senator Clinton has taken three of those states, with Pennsylvania, he predicts, to follow.

"Look," continues the Governor, "it's great that Barack Obama's doing wonderfully well in Wyoming, and Utah, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states."


Parkviewer said...

What is most important are swing states between a Republican and a Democrat - Missouri, Wisconsin, etc... not democratic strongholds like California that we know the Dems will win.

The bigger point is that Obama is doubling the democratic voter turnout that will do more to win more states - including attracting swing indipendants and republican voters.

Clinton should step down already and quit damaging the party. With her comments in the last few days you would think she is planning on running as McCain's VP.

Sue J said...

Missouri, where Obama beat Clinton by 1 percent? I'd say she has an equal shot there.

And I would not give Obama all the credit for "doubling" the voter turnout. Clinton supporters have something to do with that as well.

Why should Clinton "step down"? Is there some magic number that means the the voters of the rest of the states don't get to have the same choice you did in St. Louis?

Talk about disenfranchising voters! How about we let this thing play itself out and really let the will of the people win?

Mauigirl said...

In many of the big states, while Clinton won, she won by 10 points or less over Obama so the support was pretty strong for both. I would hope that whichever candidate gets the nomination, that those who supported Obama would be willing to vote for Clinton or vice versa. Let's hope that is the case because otherwise McCain will win.

Sue J said...

I would hope that whichever candidate gets the nomination, that those who supported Obama would be willing to vote for Clinton or vice versa.

I agree with you 100% Mauigirl.

Mary Ellen said...

Hi sue j, maui girl sent me over here and I'm glad she did.

I agree with you, Obama can win the small red states that won't go blue in the national election, big deal. I also agree that not only is the voter turn out due to Clinton as well as BO, but in general, the voter turnout is going to be strong in the national election because the Republicans (especially Bush) has mucked up our economy so bad that they know we need change. Obama is taking on that whole "change" thing because he is arrogantly thinking that HE is the change everyone is looking for. Not true...any change from the right wing faction of the Republican party is what they are looking for.

Hillary is more likely to bring our economy back. Her plan was great, Obama just ripped off most of it after she put hers out and left out some of the most important elements of that plan. His will fail, hers won't.

Sue J said...

Mary Ellen, Welcome!

Obama's got some great ideas, right? Too bad Clinton had them first!