In the past week, it has become very clear the McCain campaign has made it a point to make Pennsylvania the place where it pins hopes of a victory. At the end of last week, a McCain aide told CNN "the election hinges on Pennsylvania." That's quite a strong statement, indeed, so apparently that is why McCain and running mate Sarah Palin are spending so much time in the Keystone State in the last week of October.
Why has the McCain campaign decided it absolutely has to have Pennsylvania? Barack Obama has successfully moved several Bush states from 2004 in his direction enough that the McCain campaign has just about given up on them. Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado are the three George W. Bush states that most people believe the McCain campaign will have a very tough time winning. It isn't just these three states that are the trouble for the McCain camp, though. There are plenty more considered tossups now, and all of them went for Bush in 2004. Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Virginia and even North Dakota and even Indiana, are hotly contested by the Obama campaign. The electoral map, with eight days to go, clearly shows McCain playing defense and Obama on offense.
It is evident the McCain campaign realizes it will lose several of the Bush states from 2004 and that it must win a Kerry state or two from 2004 to win the election. Because of its 21 electoral votes and the state's love for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primary, the McCain campaign has decided Pennsylvania will be its last stand.
Is this a wise move? When looking at the current polls out of the Keystone state, it seems like this is a very questionable move. The latest RealClearPolitics average of the recent polls out of Pennsylvania shows Obama with a commanding lead of 11.2 percent. How can McCain make up 11.2 percent in one week? It is a question that doesn't seem to have any real answer, but many in the McCain campaign are saying their internal polls show the race closer than the public polling.
The truth of the matter is, that while making a huge stand in Pennsylvania doesn't seem like a wise choice, it seems like it is the McCain camp's only choice at this point. Where else would they try to win over electoral votes that Kerry won in 2004? Wisconsin and Minnesota seem extremely unlikely, and though a state like New Hampshire provides some opportunity, it only has four electoral votes.
The McCain campaign is drawing a line in the sand, saying it must win Pennsylvania. The chances seem very slim, but stranger things have happened in politics.
Published by Aaron Smith - Featured Contributor in Sports
I am a full-time freelance writer who specializes in writing about the world of sports as well as the financial industry. I write about a little bit of everything. My passion for all of these topics comes ou... View profile
- Electoral College: Should it Be Abolished for the 2008 Election?a review of the Electoral College system in America.
- What the Electoral College is and How it WorksAn overview of the national convention and what it has to do with the Electoral College and how the Electoral College works
- The Electoral College - Get Used to ItA report on the current state of the Electoral College.
- (Electoral) College Math An examination of the relative disparities in the distribution of popular vote by the Electoral College system.
- Why We Should Keep the Electoral CollegeWe need to keep the electoral college. Read inside
- What the Electoral College Means in Modern-Day America
- Dropping Out of the Electoral College - Proposed Interstate Compact Would Put Popu...
- Electoral College
- Understanding the Electoral College, the Primaries and the Delegates
- Louis McLane: Early Supporter of the Electoral College
- Should We Abolish the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?
- How a Third Party Candidacy Could Cause the Electoral College to Revolutionize
- The Keystone state will get lots of attention from the McCain camp
- They seem to have little choice but to make a stand here

4 Comments
Post a CommentBecause of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 ne
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winn
There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different.
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html
Aaron...well done once again.