Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mapping the Political Landscape

For a political junkie, the 2008 election is an embarrassment of riches.

Not only do you have an historic presidential election between two candidates with very different but equally compelling life stories, but there is a slew of intriguing downballot contests as well.

Some of the most interesting Senate races feature the likes of entertainer Al Franken; a rematch of a hard-fought contest between Jeanne Shaheen and John Sununu in New Hampshire and two former governors -- one popular, one not -- running for an open seat in Virginia.

On the House side, the playing field promises to be the largest in recent memory with Democrats seeking to take advantage of their environment and financial edges in this election to build a lasting majority.

And, even at the gubernatorial level, there is intrigue with former Bush Administration official Mitch Daniels seeking re-election in Indiana and Democrats trying to regain the Missouri governor's mansion they lost in 2004.

How can you possibly keep track of the all of the developments? First, read The Fix. (Of course.) Second, bookmark the brand new political map that debuts today at washingtonpost.com.

The interactive map allows you to sort the states in a variety of ways, including battleground states in the presidential race and key Senate contests.

Drill down on a specific state -- like The Fix's home state of Connecticut, for example -- and you all the data you could ever want: candidate information, state demographics, ads, and all the headlines pertaining to the race from across washingtonpost.com.

Bookmark it today. Use it for the rest of the election.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 12, 2008; 5:04 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Fix On Kindle
Next: The Duality of Celebrity

Comments

In response to those who said that Reagan and Bush II were the most responsible for the massive budget deficits let me ask you this question----Which party was in control of both houses of Congress when these deficits were run up????? It is Congress who spends the money honey!!!! The Presdent can only propose and sign or veto the final budget agreed upon by both the Senate and House. Didn't any of you take Government classes in high school??? I think that if you look up in the history of Congress during those times the Democrats were in charge of Congress during much, not all, but much of that time. When did most of the deficits go down??? When Clinton was in office. Who was in charge of both houses of Congress during Clinton's Administration??? The Republicans!!!! They had to pass all of Clinton's tax increases so he would sign the budget for those years, too. Don't you remember?? I am sure me and you paid for those tax increases. I know I did!!!! Signed, an independent voter. Thank you.

Posted by: ace2164 | August 18, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Quote - "Next, the democrats keep on proposing MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS which they have no way of paying for."

And the Republican party is still noted for its fiscal restraint? The brilliant idea of cutting taxes during a $10 billion/month war on two fronts has certainly panned out with a booming economy, hasn't it?

The difference (to grossly oversimplify - although in light of the quote to which I'm responding I feel fine) is that Democrats would spend the money here (on Americans) rather than on killing brown people thousands of miles away. Pay attention to the world, not the party line. Remember that the last great boom of the American economy happened under a Democrat.

Posted by: Chris | August 16, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Yeah... really, this is the kind of map you get when you're terrified you'll offend Republicans by telling the truth (as Colbert says, the truth has a well-known liberal bias).

Pennsylvania isn't a toss-up; it's been firm Obama for over two months now. Just because McCain's camp SAYS they're contesting PA doesn't mean it's a toss-up.

New Jersey? Please. Don't be delusional. I certainly hope Republicans think New Jersey is a "swing state". I hope McCain wastes a lot of time and money here. I'll wave to him as he loses the state by ten points anyway.

Posted by: howlless | August 15, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The democrats appear to have significant problems with mathematics.

Which is scary.

FIRST THIS IS THE THIRD BUSH TERM COUNT !

Next, the democrats keep on proposing MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS which they have no way of paying for except to RAISE TAXES WHICH WILL PLUNGE THIS COUNTRY INTO STAGFLATION.

The democrats are irresponsible people who have horrible math skills. They constantly run budget deficits and their personal corruption runs to new heights every year. Everytime the democrats run anything this nation is worse off.


Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2008 8:12
AM
++++++++++++++++

As Hypatia said, to be bad at something is okay.

To be a complete moron and to think OTHERS are, that's spittle.

Since the 1940's, under which party's White House that our DEBTS have gone up the most (in other words, for complete warm-level intelligence like you: which PRESIDENTS, GOP or DEM, gave us the most debts?):

1. Kennedy
2. Johnson
3. Nixon
4. Ford
5. Carter
6. Reagan
7. Bush I
8. Clinton
9. Bush II

Do you know the answer?

Reagan and Bush II.

All the other ones, be they GOP or DEM, gave us average debt accumulation.

Reagan almost quadrupled our debts; Bush Jr. takes our debts from about 5 Trillion to about 10 Trillion.

If you "math skills" are too poor: what that means is this: All the presidents from Washington to Clinton saddled us with about $5 Trillion debts.

Bush JR alone has doubled that debt.

But in terms of per capita debts, Reagan, the "small government" mediocre actor i-diot saddled us with the most,,,,

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm from Kentucky and think it is in play for Obama IF he chooses Hillary as his running mate and stops the attacks (abeit by others) on the Clintons. People here remember the Clinton years as ones of peace and prosperity. This division in the ranks will spell his doom in Ky if not fixed. Of course, alot of liberals dismiss us as not important...but our electoral votes do count. Clinton carried the state. It can be done.

Posted by: KyElizabeth | August 13, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting comparing your map to the one at Pollster.com. In every case I can see the differences are against Obama.
You rate Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and New Hampshire as battleground, while Pollster.com has them as "leans Obama."
Pollster.com has Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Jersey as "strong Obama" (he has double-digit or near double-digit leads in those states), while you rate them as battleground.
You also rate Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana, as "lean Republican" while Pollster.com has them as toss-up. The polls put Obama and McCain within a few points in those states.
Pollster.com shows a snapshot, while you are trying to make predictions about where the battle will be fought. But given that Obama will have more money to spend in the general election, and has built a ground operation in all states (definitely including, as has been widely reported, Montana), and shows increasing strength in most of the toss-up states, it appears that your map is assuming some unreported McCain advantage nationwide. What, pray tell, is that?

Posted by: Jon Webb | August 13, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

The democrats appear to have significant problems with mathematics.

Which is scary.

FIRST THIS IS THE THIRD BUSH TERM COUNT !

Next, the democrats keep on proposing MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS which they have no way of paying for except to RAISE TAXES WHICH WILL PLUNGE THIS COUNTRY INTO STAGFLATION.

The democrats are irresponsible people who have horrible math skills. They constantly run budget deficits and their personal corruption runs to new heights every year. Everytime the democrats run anything this nation is worse off.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Do you want to elect MacCaine because he was a war "HERO" SHOT down and captured by the Vietnamese army...what a crap. How do you define a hero? someone who was captured , spent much of his time in detantion before released. This is really laughable....a detained war hero. Please give heroism another meaning. This is a big joke. How can you call a looser a hero? Please people, give us another meaning of heroism.

Posted by: geo | August 13, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

EXTREMELY WELL STATED VICTOR FLORES PLEASE KEEP POSTING AND NEVER NEVER BACK DOWN WHEN THESE CRAZY OBAMA PEOPLE SEEK TO INTIMIDATE AND HARASS YOU INTO NOT POSTING ANYMORE

**************************************


to " sequoia"

Please don't patronize me, this election should have been referendum on Bush, instead it is about Obama. Obama got the nomination by discounting white votes in Michigan/Florida, by the back room deals (Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.), blackmailing (Edwards and his marital malfunction) and arm twisting (Governor Richardson) by Howard Dean, race baiting (President Bill Clinton) branding the Honorable Bill Clinton into a racist. We, the electorate can spot a fake and a dishonorable man (Obama) when we see one. You (sequoia) have drank the "Obama Koolaid" and you would know the truth if it hit ya! Oh, by the way, I am Hispanic, I vote, and have been a life long Democrat, but I am voting for John McCain and if by chance McCain does lose at least I know in my heart I voted for the right man.
BLUE VOTER, VOTING RED.

Posted by: Victor Flores | August 12, 2008 9:48 PM


Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain's line of attack - attacking Obama as another bimbo-eruption celebrity - is absolute GENIUS.

Obama is obsessed with his own ego which is hard to do.

McCain has found a way to define Obama and when a candidate is defined in a campaign it helps if it is true - and defining Obama as a bimbo-eruption is extremely accurate.

The people who support Obama have not evaluated his actual qualifications or skills which he will need to perform the actual position - their support has become a quasi-revival meeting joke.

The contrast between the two men can not be starker - when McCain was offered the opportunity to be released by the Vietnamese McCain stated "See that guy over there in that cell, it's his turn to go home first, BRING IT ON BABY I'M STAYING AT THE HANOI HILTION."

OK

Compared to a guy who has maxed out every affirmative action program he can find including democratic delegate selections, McCain is SOLID, McCain is tougher and McCain can lead this nation's economy to strength.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

to " sequoia"

Please don't patronize me, this election should have been referendum on Bush, instead it is about Obama. Obama got the nomination by discounting white votes in Michigan/Florida, by the back room deals (Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.), blackmailing (Edwards and his marital malfunction) and arm twisting (Governor Richardson) by Howard Dean, race baiting (President Bill Clinton) branding the Honorable Bill Clinton into a racist. We, the electorate can spot a fake and a dishonorable man (Obama) when we see one. You (sequoia) have drank the "Obama Koolaid" and you would know the truth if it hit ya! Oh, by the way, I am Hispanic, I vote, and have been a life long Democrat, but I am voting for John McCain and if by chance McCain does lose at least I know in my heart I voted for the right man.
BLUE VOTER, VOTING RED.

Posted by: Victor Flores | August 12, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

this map is pretty funny. if cillizza had anything to do with putting it together, i've lost all respect for him. come on man, i know the post wants you to pour the red sauce all over your work, but this is just too obvious.

Posted by: sp | August 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Here in Republican Northeastern Wisconsin, McCain's negative, anti-Obama ad campaign has really damaged his credibility and integrity. We expected better from him.

In fact, the only pro-McCain commercials all dealt with his experiences as a POW during the Viet Nam war. But nothing about what he's done since the '60s, or shortly after the time that Obama was born!

Now, maybe things will change once the major party conventions take place. But I can't say that I'll get more enthusiastic; I just think this is a weak field all the way through the third-party candidates (Ralph Nader?).

While McCain's advertising dulls the luster of his story, I also feel that Obama's supporters have become restive, wondering "Where's the beef?" The real bad news is that 90% of the electorate hasn't begun to pay attention yet.

Posted by: bulldog6 | August 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Minnesota, Oregon, Iowa, and New jersey ARE NOT SWING STATES

they are Minnesota, ORegon, New Jersey are likely obama

Iowa is lean obama

Indiana should be listed as swing out
1. they are tied in the polls...literally like obama with a 1 point lead
1a. mccain has a poll with a 8 point lead but so does obama
2. while history shows indiana to be red you have to consider the enthusiasm gap

high enthusiasm means high turnout - democtacts
low enthusiasm means low turnout - republicans

and that factor with the tie in the polls...they beat out "historic tendencies" especially in a year so bad for republicans

alaska is a battle ground state - obama is only behind by 4

montana is a battle ground - obama behind by 3

if you have to include Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, New Jersey, as states mccain can steal

then you have to - on the flip side - include Indiana, Alaska, Montana, maybe even georgia as states obama can steal

Posted by: Sean | August 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The demographic data on the site seems to be full of errors. Three states I looked at, NC, ND and VA, all have percentages that don't add up for the categories of marital status, occupation and class of workers.

Posted by: please fix | August 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama will probably win. He just needs to hold on to the Kerry states (which looks likely) and win Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico, or just Ohio. There are many different scenerios that can put Obama over 270 electoral votes compared to McCain.

Posted by: zzz1204 | August 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris -- The map for Montana is in error. Roy Brown (R) is NOT running against Max Baucus for US Senate. He is runnig agains Brian Schweitzer for Governor. The Republican candidate for US Senate is Robert Kelliher. In the past, Kelliher has run for office as a Democrat and on the Green Party ticket. His main issue is the need to change to a parlimentarian system. He advanced that argument in Montana's Constituional Convention in 1972, without any success.

Posted by: ASB | August 12, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

scrivener SCREAMED:

"MARK PENN WAS RIGHT. OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE.
AND TOO MANY DEMOCRATS ARE SPELLBOUND."
_______________________

Mark Penn? You mean the guy who ran Hillary's confused, disorganized, Rovian campaign and lost? Okay then. Enough said.

I wonder how Obama beat Hillary and is beating McCain if he's so "unelectable"?

Try again.

Posted by: sequoia | August 12, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The Mississippi Census Data has at least 1 error. I'm sure that more than 2.7% of the population is married.

Posted by: Una Malachica | August 12, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I am an independent who decided to back Obama after McCain decided to bring Britney Spears??? into the campaign and mocked actual conservation techniques like having proper tire inflation. His drum beat for this drilling scam proved he is in the pocket of the oil industry and I don't like that. My husband is a Republican who voted for Bush twice and is backing Obama. Do you thin he's the only one? I sure don't.

Posted by: Monique C. | August 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse


MARK PENN WAS RIGHT. OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE.
AND TOO MANY DEMOCRATS ARE SPELLBOUND.

• A "AL-le-GORE-y foretold by John Lennon?


"Oh!" The pundits gasp. "That Mark Penn! How COULD he say those mean things?"

To which I say, yeah, how could Penn speak the unvarnished truth and find his on-point prophecies so derided by Hillaryland appeasers?

Events are proving Mark Penn right. Obama has failed to lead. He has failed to fight. He has failed to adhere to the core positions that won him a loyal following among cockeyed lefties.

And yes, too often Obama has projected the disconcerting image of a stranger in a strange land, an outsider, someone who says he's from Kansas but whose manner seems like it came straight out of Oz.

Beware the man behind the curtain.

Geraldine Ferraro was right, too; Obamanauts fell in love with a dream, and succumbed to the siren lure of a personality cultist, a too-clever-by-half dream-weaver.

It was not enough that he aspires to be the American President after only three undistinguished years on the national scene. No, Barack Obama had to present himself as the President of the World. He is, as the GOP mocks, "The One" who professes to transform humankind not by adherence to principle but by expediency and compromise masquerading as "change."

And maybe Hillary was right, if impolitic, with HER mocking: "And the celestial choirs will SING!..."

Obama has turned out to be yet another false prophet. He started out as a visionary who dared to dream. Then the dream transmogrified into mass hypnosis, a soul-less trance. Obama executed the spell, but also fell victim to his own voodoo.

John Lennon wrote a song about a man like this:

He's a real nowhere man / living in his nowhere land / Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Doesn't have a point of view / knows not where he's going to / Isn't he a bit like you and me

Then, a second verse relevant to the Obama Odyssey:

He's as blind as he can be / Just sees what he wants to see / Nowhere man, can you see me at all?

Obama bought into his own dream. He failed to perceive the real needs of the people he would save. And now, he cannot see that the dream is over (to evoke the words of yet another Lennon lyric).

It is over because it is a dream bereft of a soul. Obama's dream is Obama. He has become his own graven image, the object of his own blind idol-worship. He committed a cardinal sin: He bought into his own hype, believed his own press.

Now, even Obama's most loyal core supporters, the starry-eyed legions who set him upon his "improbable journey," have awakened from the dream.

Thank the Lord, and Mark Penn, that the revelation has come just in time for the Democratic Party to save itself.

Hillary has assumed the mantle of savior, although she will not be the one to return to "the promised land"(read, White House). Her loyal delegates will prevent Obama from being nominated on the first ballot, and then Hillary will power-broker a winning strategy: Recognizing that her marital baggage proscribes her from the nomination, she will throw her support, and her delegates, to Al Gore.

Even before the final roll call, Gore will have signaled that he would name Barack Obama as his vice presidential designate, defusing any opposition that might arise from Obama diehards. And Gore will go on to decisively defeat Obama on the final roll call.

Obama, now chastened, will accept the vice presidency with an appropriate mixture of pride and humility -- the humility that was lacking in his over-reaching campaign for the top job.

A fantasy, you say? Please let us quote from yet another John Lennon verse:

You may say I'm a dreamer / But I'm not the only one

Why don't you come and join us / And the world will live as one

Just so happens that in '08, "The One" may turn out to be "The Gore-acle," not Barack Obama.

BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN COUNT? Not if gov't.-supported "vigilante injustice" squads are targeting Americans outside of the bounds of the law:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

Posted by: scrivener | August 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I am from Indiana and I believe we will be real blue in November.I am hoping we get rid of Bush's good buddy we have here, Mitch. He said he would only run for one term, but of course he lied. Now he wants to get a second term so he can privatize the rest of the state or sell it. Ditch Mitch and John McSenile in 08.OBAMA/BAYH 08
Connie from Indiana

Posted by: Connie | August 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain...more the the same, and we're tired of it.

Time for a change. I am so excited to vote for Obama in November!

Posted by: dAVE | August 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet wrote:

"McCain's line of attack - attacking Obama as another bimbo-eruption celebrity - is absolute GENIUS."
_____________________________

Then why can't McCain break past 44% in national polls? That's a pathetic number and unlikely to get much higher since we know McCain and obviously don't like him that much. Obviously, his goofy "celebrity" attack line hasn't moved any numbers. How BRILLIANT!

I have absolutely looked into Obama's positions and qualifications and I much prefer him over McSame who only promises to continue our current path into the gutter. Obama is more knowledgeable and babbles less blindly along the lines of party ideology, has a far more pragmatic and reality-based view of the world, shares my values of liberty, justice and equality and is just much smarter and more prepared 21st-century leadership than McCain...who doesn't even know how to send an e-mail.

McCain is a joke. He's out-of-touch, has never had a real job and looks like he doesn't even know where he is half the time. I'll pass on another Bush term, thanks.

Posted by: sequoia | August 12, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

McCain's line of attack - attacking Obama as another bimbo-eruption celebrity - is absolute GENIUS.

Obama is obsessed with his own ego which is hard to do.

McCain has found a way to define Obama and when a candidate is defined in a campaign it helps if it is true - and defining Obama as a bimbo-eruption is extremely accurate.

The people who support Obama have not evaluated his actual qualifications or skills which he will need to perform the actual position - their support has become a quasi-revival meeting joke.

The contrast between the two men can not be starker - when McCain was offered the opportunity to be released by the Vietnamese McCain stated "See that guy over there in that cell, it's his turn to go home first, BRING IT ON BABY I'M STAYING AT THE HANOI HILTION."

OK

Compared to a guy who has maxed out every affirmative action program he can find including democratic delegate selections, McCain is SOLID, McCain is tougher and McCain can lead this nation's economy to strength.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | August 12, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

This map is off and much more rosy for McCain than is the reality. But the bottom line is that polls can't predict turnout and anybody with a brain will agree that Obama will likely bring out a lot more voters than McCain.

McCain doesn't even have any real supporters from what I can tell, and elections are NEVER won by just hating the other guy. Ask Dole or Kerry - weak, disorganized candidates (like McCain) who were relying on anti-the other guy sentiment to win.

That's not gonna happen. I think Obama will win in a landslide, actually.

Posted by: Shawn | August 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

There is something about this map that just doesn't jibe with reality. Does anyone really think in a year when Republicans are so unpopular that Obama will not AT LEAST do as well as John Kerry did in 2004? I would be astonished if Pennsylvania d not go for Obama. The campaign has really not begun yet and when it does, after the conventions, this map is going to look very out of date.

Posted by: political map | August 12, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Victor Flores wrote:

"America wake up do we want a President that has to have a higher turn out among African Americans or white liberals to get elected?"
_______________________________

Sorry Victor, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure why you think African American or liberal votes aren't as important as yours, but that's not the point.

Obama is leading McCain among many / most groups, including women (48% to 39%), Hispanics (57% to 30%), ALL age groups under 65, ALL education groups except those without a college degree (and that gap is closing) and so on.

Why don't YOU "wake up" and stop pretending Obama only has support among blacks and liberals? Why don't YOU stop pretending your vote should count more? It's just delusional. McCain can barely get to 44% in most national polls, so WOW that's a lot of blacks and liberals, huh?

LOL!

Posted by: sequoia | August 12, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I live in Southwest MI and was raised in IN. I would place IN as a highly RED state from what I see and MI as off-blue, should be a solid Blue state but the econommic woes have it leaning more and more RED. IMO

Posted by: GRCO | August 12, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"I don't believe that maxing out every affirmative action program one can find is a compelling life story."

No one cares what you believe, einswine.


Posted by: Nice try, dipwad, but no | August 12, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

This map is a joke.

Obama has a bigger lead in many of these "swing states" than McCain does in those Republican states! What's up wit dat?

For example, composite polling (via pollster.com) puts Obama at 9 points ahead in PA, while McCain is less than 6 points ahead in Texas. So why is PA a swing state and TX not? What's up wit dat?

Here's what the map REALLY looks like:

Obama is ahead in ALL the 2004 Kerry states plus OH, IA and NM.

The REAL swing states are: FL, NC, VA, IN, MO, ND, MT, NV and CO (which McCain has to win ALL to have a chance in hell).


Posted by: sequoia | August 12, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The polls are showing Obama with a slight lead, but I do not hold them to be credible, there are many voters who will vote for McCain that have not been heard yet. It seems that Obama has to have a higher turnout from African Americans to make a difference in those swing states. I also sense that McCain will eventually carry those states, America wake up do we want a President that has to have a higher turn out among African Americans or white liberals to get elected? Obama is showing his true colors and it is turning off alot of mainstream Americans. Don't forget this man stayed in a divisive bigoted church for over 20 years, has Jesse Jackson Jr on his campaign staff, weasled his way to the nomination with the help of Howard Dean, Speaker Pelosi and pundit Donna Brazille. There will be a awakening on November 4, and it's not gonna go Obama's way.
BLUE VOTER, VOTING RED.

Posted by: Victor Flores | August 12, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

If Hillery was a republican the GOP would have placed her on top, and if Obama were also, he would be a shoe in, and Edwards's affair would have been hushed up.

Posted by: marta | August 12, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Your map is defective. NJ,OR,PA,WI,MN,WI are not a swing states this year. Obama has solid leads in all those states. You need an update.

Posted by: HonestAbe | August 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe that maxing out every affirmative action program one can find is a compelling life story.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | August 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

You've got New Jersey as a swing state, but Indiana as a McCain state. You fail.

Posted by: Blarg | August 12, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

MN, WI, PA, NJ, IA and OR are not Swing states, they are favorable to Obama.

IN, ND, and MT are Swing States leaning toward McCain.

The map can't be cut and dry, it needs to have a leaners category to be more effective

Posted by: Stephen | August 12, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

That map is /way/ too conservative. I prefer 538 or electoral-vote.com. There are /not/ that many swing states. All of the +5-10% for Obama states are listed as swings, and that's really quite silly.

Posted by: Joey | August 12, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company