John Kerry's Electoral College Advantage

If you look at this July 7th poll of states from Rasmussen, you will see that Kerry is in pretty good shape. [Please note: this post is based on numbers for July 7th. The numbers change regularly] Rasmussen now places Florida in the Kerry column. (According to Rasmussen's methodology, a state goes in a candidate's column only if the candidate is ahead by five or more percentage points. Otherwise the state is labeled a "toss-up.")

There are 98 electoral votes in states in which no candidate leads by more than five percentage points. (I'm using Rasmussen's figures. Your mileage may differ.). To obtain the necessary 270 votes, Kerry must win 33 more electoral votes; Bush must win 67 more. Kerry can do this by winning any two out of the three of Michigan (17), Ohio (20), and Pennsylvania (21). If he only wins one of these three, he will need to win three small states: Oregon (7), New Hampshire (4), and New Mexico (5). If he cannot win any of the three large states, he cannot win the Presidency. But a Democrat who cannot win either Michigan or Pennsylvania probably doesn't deserve to win.

Bush, by contrast, has a more difficult road ahead of him. Let's assume that Bush will win Missouri (11) and Virginia (13), which he will probably do if the race is close. That means he must win 43 more votes, and that means he must win two of the big three remaining states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That is because even if he wins Oregon, New Hampshire and New Mexico, he is still 27 votes short.

Bush has to focus on the big three, and he must try to get Florida back in his column. That gives Kerry and Edwards the ability to move into other states and make trouble for Bush. They can take the offensive. Note, for example, that if either Virginia (13) or Missouri (11) goes for Kerry, the wheels start to come off of Bush's wagon. Kerry would still need 20 or 22 electoral votes, respectively, to win. But a Democrat who picks up either Missouri or Virginia is virtually guaranteed to pick up 22 more electoral votes from somewhere in that list.

In short, when you are ahead, the possible methods of disrupting your opponent multiply; when you are behind, the urgency of focusing on a few key states and holding onto what you have is enhanced.

UPDATE: In case you are wondering, in the second paragraph, I'm assuming that Missouri and Virginia are going Republican. Drop that assumption, and Kerry could lose all three big states, and theoretically win by winning Missouri (11) and Virginia (13) and two of Oregon (7), New Hampshire (4), and New Mexico (5). But it would be very unusual for a Democrat today to to lose Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio and pick up both Missouri and Virginia. (In the old days of the Solid South, it would have been less unusual).

UPDATE: As you will notice if you go to the website, Rasmussen's polls change regularly, so the mix of states that are toss-ups changes accordingly. My remarks apply to the mix of states as of July 7th.