For the Campaigns, It’s Already About Electoral College Math

Rasmussen Reports ^ | September 9, 2011 | Larry J. Sabato

[Clintonfatigued]

Straw polls, real polls, debates, caucuses and primaries — these comprise the public side of presidential campaigns 14 months before Election Day. But behind the scenes, strategists for President Obama and his major Republican opponents are already focused like a laser on the Electoral College.

The emerging general election contest gives every sign of being highly competitive, unlike 2008. Of course, at this point in 1983 and 1995, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, respectively, were in trouble; and in 1991 George H.W. Bush still looked safe. Unexpectedly strong economic growth could make Obama’s reelection path much easier than it currently looks to be. So could the nomination of a damaged candidate by the Republicans. On the other hand, a few more months like the preceding couple, and Obama’s reelection trajectory will resemble Jimmy Carter’s.

These possibilities aside, both parties are sensibly planning for a close election. For all the talk about what Hispanics will do or how young people will vote, the private chatter is about which party column the vital swing states will favor. It’s always the Electoral College math that matters most.

George Mason supported an Electoral College because “…it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colours to a blind man.” The Electoral College has survived only because it has evolved into the converse of Mason’s vision. The people in each state judge presidential character, decide the ballots cast by electors and — blindly or not — choose the colors that cloak the states on election night, either Republican Red or Democratic Blue.

[LonePalm]

Unfortunately, the prolonged fight over the 2000 election seems to have frozen the color identification in place.

The democrats don't want to be identified with 'red' because it correctly associates them with the socialists and communists.

The worst thing you can do to a democrat is to identify or quote them accurately.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Apogee]

This is where the massive amount of (mis)information on the internet starts to show.
Not long ago, it was possible to quickly find a chart showing red/blue maps for the last several decades of elections, with notes explaining that in this or that year, red = this party, and blue the other.
My memory was that it flipped every election to avoid any preferential argument being made by one side or the other.

Not only can I not find that set of maps, the sheer number of references to the post 2000 “norm” has buried it. The closest I can find is the following link, which actually defines it a bit differently, though perhaps more accurately than I recall:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005157.php

[Right Wing Assault]

Blue was used for the party holding the White House and red for the challenger.

Not in '80 and '84. It was the reverse.

[Revolting cat!]

56 states for Perry.

[Republican Wildcat]

Reagan’s states were blue in 1980 and Carter’s red - I posted the video link above.

[Republican Wildcat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-52n_qaL6BE 1988 - Dem Blue, GOP Red

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IxGjLb2rqM 1992 - Dem Blue, GOP Red

I found one video from 1972 it showed Nixon’s states as blue. Could not find any from any other years.