Everyone is talking about a realigned map for the general election. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that both campaigns are trying to win on unlikely battlegrounds.

The notion is that Obama is going after several states that have recently been red, while McCain is poaching on traidtionally blue states.

What I have done below is taken a look at what the campaigns claim are their targeted "poach states." Below each state is listed along with the potential electoral votes for each. Also included are the projected chances that each poacher will succeed in changing the color of the state, and electoral points allotted based on this computation. These projections are based on current polling and historical voting patterns in presidential elections.

First a few observations.

• In the event that Obama were to win all of the Kerry states won in 2004, plus all of the poached states, (factoring in the 20 point disadvantage based on Kerry's 20 electoral vote loss in 2004) he would win a lanslide victory of 393 electoral votes.
• However, In the event that McCain were to hold all of the states that George W. Bush won in 2004 and also win all of his poached states, McCain would win a landslide victory of 353 electoral votes.

None of these projections figure in Obama's money advantage, Obama's organizational advantage, or unforeseen events. But they do point to a closer race than I would have imagined with Obama likely receiving 286 electoral votes to McCain's 256.

• Here is the data.

States Obama Wants To Poach: (149 electoral votes, minus 20 vote Republican advantage from 2004 = 129 electoral votes) (the second numbers in parenthesis reflects the percentage chance of the candidate winning the state and the resulting projected electoral votes based on the percentage.)

Florida: (27 electoral votes) (50%= 13.5)

Georgia (15 electoral votes) (30%=4.5)

Virginia (13 electoral votes) (70%=9.7)

Iowa (7 electoral votes) (80%=5.6)

Colorado (9 electoral votes) (70%=6.3)

New Mexico (5 electoral votes) (75%=3.75)

Nevada (5 electoral votes) (25%=1.25)

Alaska (3 electoral votes) (10%=.3)

Montana (3 electoral votes) (15%=.45)

North Dakota (3 electoral votes) (10%=1)

Missouri (11 electoral votes) (25%=2.75)

Ohio (20 electoral votes) (80%=14)

North Carolina (15 electoral votes) (25%=3.75)

OBAMA TOTAL CONVERSION: 68.85 -20 (2004 Reep advantage) = 48.85 electoral votes above needed 271= Grand Total 320 ELECTORAL VOTE VICTORY (assuming he holds Kerrys' states).

States McCain Hopes To Poach. (77 electoral votes)

New Jersey (15 electoral votes) (10%= 1.5)

Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) (10%= 2.1)

New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) (10%- .4)

Michigan (17 electoral votes) (10%= 1.7)

Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) (10%= 1)

Minnesota (10 electoral votes) (5%= 0.5)

McCAIN TOTAL CONVERSION: 7.2 PLUS THE 20 VOTES ABOVE 271 IN 2OO4=37 Total Electoral Votes Over Needed 271 = GRAND TOTAL= McCain Victory of 305 electoral votes (if he holds all of Bush's 2004 states.)

Obama Converted Advantage: 320 electoral votes for Obama - 305 electoral votes for McCain = 15 electoral advantage to Obama. This converts to Obama (286 electoral votes) McCain (266 electoral votes.)

Of course, the results of the general election cannot break down this way given the winner take all system in each of the poach states. However, when tactics and money are eliminated from the equation, political logic points to only a small electoral college advantage for Obama.

Assuming Obama earns a landslide victory, it will attributed to the acumen of the candidate and his campaign organization and not to built in advantages.

<link>

Let me siimplify things for you, in mathematical type terms:

Obama + Clinton= certain victory for dems

Like them, I admire McCain very much. I feel the fierce urgency of now though.

Regarding Sen. Clinton I don't know her, neither do I know what she wants. She can influence this country in many ways. It's up to her what she wants to do with the rest of her life. It's not like she has to be the Christ and keep slaving herself out 2 undereducated morons like myself. Maybe she wants to be a teacher, or go back to Wal-Mart where they and their shoppers collect cereal 2 give to children who might not have enough to eat during these difficult times. Maybe in her retirement she just wants to be a wal-mart greeter who sticks smiley faces on kids hands and has them smile back at her. Who knows? Maybe she wants 2 sit at a Yankees game and only worry about the score. Or float the Buffalo River. I dunno I am so humbled.

Hey pwoxby;

Do you know what's up with Slate? Are they on vacation or something? There don't seem to be any new articles, and the overall number of posts is down to almost nothing. I feel like I'm talking to myself since the primaries were decided.

John

John,

Someone else mentioned that Trailhead has gone so quiet that they could hear crickets chirping.

Anyway, you mentioned that you have a particular commitment to community, so I was wondering if you are familiar with the ideas of M. Scott Peck, Robert Greenleaf, or Peter Block, to name a few, on community, community building and related issues.

Pwoxby;

I have heard of Peck, but not the others. I believe he was pretty theoretical and spiritual. I am more political. I encountered a book of his when I was writing a training manual on team building. I realized his academic approach wasn't what I was looking for, so I didn't read all of it.

When I speak of a commitment to community I am usually referring to expanding out from the purely libertarian view of personal freedom and combining it with a sense of collectivism. I don't see contradictions among the concepts of personal freedom, personal responsibility, and collective responsibility for the planet and for the well being of one another. I have always believed in a melding of the best of liberal and libertarian thought, resulting in a pragmatic and compassionate concern for both personal liberty and personal security.

The phrase "a relentless commmitment to community" which you picked up on in one of my comments was simply something I wrote on the spot. The notion was to rebut a conservative's claim that he or she claimed to care about poverty, but at the same time express a willingness to give up on addressing it because past attempts to eradicate it had failed. Without the relentless commitment, I believe, we are setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This thing about Trailhead is strange. That weird Web 2 thing has been up there for what seems like weeks. That's probably why no one clicks on. I think I'll stop writing until I see the traffic go up.

John

John,

Michael Kinsley, following a lead by Bill Gates, has set up this project that may interest you:

<link>

Oooh, Thanks Pwoxby;

I like Kinsley and the site looks great!

Peace

john adkisson ! I have noticed it also. The Hillary supporters feel MUCH more let down,than the obama people realize.Almost to the point of "who cares" screwed again ! I personally could care less about who wins now ! It feels like someone just punched me in the stomach,and i have lost my breath ! We made our decision,she lost.If i had liked obama to begin with,i would have backed him .Did not like him then,don't like him now . Why can't people understand that ?

Remind them of this, perhaps she can as a Senator be more influential. Perhaps Sen. Clinton is just getting started. Remember her name~baby.

Hey John,

That last TrailHead article was posted Friday before last. I'm hoping they were off for a week, and since they never post on weekends except for very special circumstances (e.g. the meeting of the RBC), I'm hopeful that posting will resume tomorrow. However, maybe they're off for two weeks (to encompass Independence Day) and will resume July 7. Either way, sure would have been nice for them to TELL somebody, eh?

Salient Man;

I agree. It doesn't seem like a very sound business practice to just fall asleep. In the information field people stray and never come back.

John

Reddawg;

Ok, you don't like Obama. We get it. Now decide what you believe in and work for it. It's ok to lose. It creates focus. It's better to win, and I hope you get over your angry blues. If I understood you, you liked Clinton. If so, Obama is the closest you'll get. If you vote on personality, God bless you. You may get what ask for--another George Bush..