Commentators like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert love to play up the idea of a tight election–it's good for ratings, I guess.(*) Matthews recently told his hero John McCain that he has a 50-50 chance of winning the election.(*) Russert made a similar claim to Howard Dean, saying McCain is either tied with or beating the Democratic candidates in polls.(*)
Meanwhile, an AP story (posted on MSNBC, which both Matthews and Russert are affiliated with) says the electoral map favors Democrats and states that "McCain will have to play defense".(*) How to explain the discrepancy?(*) Matthews and Russert are ignoring the way we elect a president in the U.S.
Of course, it's the electoral college, not the popular vote, that determines the winner of the presidential election.(*)(*)It's no mystery which party will win the electoral votes(*)in most states.(*) AP's analysis estimates that just 14 states are(*)likely to be(*)in play.(*) Bush won 8 of those 14 in 2004–half by just 1 or 2 percentage points.(*) Ohio (decided by just 118,000 votes)(*)and Virginia (where Dems are poised to take a Senate seat) are potential Dem pickups, as are Colorado (another possible Senate pickup for the Dems, but much closer than VA) and New Mexico (Bush won by fewer than 6,000 votes).
McCain has just 6 pickup opportunities in states Kerry won in 2004.(*) In the biggest of these states, PA, Bush has just a 29% approval rating.(*) As the AP story notes, several of these states have been hit hard by the failing economy, which is a problem for McCain.(*)
Matthews and Russert are missing the point when they talk about popular vote polling.(*) They should be asking: how does McCain hope to hang on to Ohio and Virginia?(*) Can McCain pick up PA, WI, or MI?(*) These are the relevant questions to ask in our electoral college system.(*) AP recognizes that these dynamics favor the Democrats–will Matthews, Russert, and the rest figure this out eventually?
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)