Still crunching the numbers on Barack Obama and John McCain

One week after election day, the votes in the presidential race continue to dribble in (democracy remains a messy process).

CNN, on its Website, conscientiously keeps updating the popular vote totals. The last time we checked, it showed Barack Obama with more than 66.1 million votes. John McCain was just shy of the 58-million mark.

Oddly, at least to us, the CNN site has yet to reflect Obama's apparent victory in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District which, in that state, means he claims one of its electoral votes (the other four go to McCain).

Assuming the Republican retains his ever-so-small margin in the one state several news outlets have been reluctant to call -- Missouri -- the electoral count will come in at:

Obama -- 365

McCain -- 173

With the Show Me State emerging as the election's quintessential battleground, what, we wondered, were the sites of the biggest routs -- the bluest of the blue and the reddest of the red?

Setting aside the District of Columbia (which Obama carried with almost 93% of the vote), the president-elect's best showing occurred in his native state of Hawaii. The New York Times' results map gives him 71.8% of the vote in Hawaii (making it the only state where either candidate broke the 70% mark).

Obama recorded his second-best showing in Vermont, where he garnered 66.8% of the vote. On the one hand, that's no surprise.  Vermont, to many, is synonymous with liberalism. 

On the other hand, Obama's showing in the Green Mountain State underscores its amazing transformation from a bastion of Republicanism. In the 34 presidential elections between 1856, the first to feature a Republican, and 1992 (when Bill Clinton won it), the GOP candidate failed to carry Vermont precisely once -- in 1964.

In 2004, the bluest of the blue (again excluding D.C.) was Massachusetts; John Kerry won his home turf with 61.9% of the vote. That was the only state ...

... where Kerry surpassed the 60% figure. Obama, by contrast, exceeded that figure in 10 states.

In 2000, the most Democratic of states was Rhode Island, which Al Gore carried with 60.9% of the vote.

Determining McCain's best state turns out to be somewhat complicated.

He racked up his highest vote percentage -- 65.6, as of the current count -- in Oklahoma (the N.Y. Times took a look Saturday at antipathy toward Obama in the Sooner State).

But McCain scored his greatest margin of victory in Wyoming. He picked up 65.2% of the vote there and, with Obama getting only 32.7%, that gave McCain a 32.8-percentage-point win.

With Obama having a slightly higher vote total in Oklahoma, McCain's winning margin there was 31.2 percentage points.

In 2004, the reddest of the red was Utah, where George W. Bush won 71.5% of the vote.

In 2000, Bush posted his best showing in Wyoming, where he won 67.7% of the vote (running a close second: Idaho, where 67.1% of the voters backed him).

Numbers ... lots of numbers to crunch, in lots of different ways -- one of the many aspects of elections that we adore!

-- Don Frederick

To get alerts on every new Ticket flashed to your cellphone, go here to register for free.

Photo credits: Associated Press

Comments

[Dave Ebenhoh]

If we elected Obama to be our voice, so that we can go back to being quiet, we have made a mistake - for we must continue to speak. If we elected Obama to carry us, so that we can go back to our seats, we have made a mistake - for we must continue to carry him. If we elected Obama to change our country, so that we do not need to, we have made mistake - for the change lives in us.

We ask, “Is Obama strong enough?” but we should ask, “Are we strong enough?” We ask, “Can Obama make the tough decisions?”, but we should ask, “Can we make the tough decisions?” We ask, “Will Obama be honest about the sacrifices we need to make?”, but we should ask, “Will we be honest about the sacrifices we need to make?”

While we wait to see what Obama will do next, what decisions he will make, and who he will choose to help him, let us remember that the focus should more truly be on us. As Obama himself has said many times, it is we who have carried him to this place and we cannot stop carrying him now.

Right here and right now, whoever and wherever you are - how will you change? What will you say today that you have never had the courage to say before? What will you do today that you have never had the courage to do? Who will you lift up today that you have not had the courage to lift up?

It started with our desire. It will only continue with our action. It has only just begun.

We have called for a new voice, let it be our own.

Can we do it?
Yes we can.

Peace,
Dave

[Tom J]

Utah was red, but I read somewhere that the donations were split fairly evenly. fwiw

[embrooks]

alessandro: what's your point with the question...are you speaking about caucus contests in general or a specific caucus with relevance to the piece. Pres Elect Obama drubbed Sen. Clinton in caucuses because his supporters were better organizers (and were better organized) and the campaign made sure to cross the Ts and dot the Is (the small components that Sen. Clinton nor Pres. Clinton have never done well) to bring home the victories. Ultimately, Sen. Clinton lost the primary because of a faulty campaign strategy (thank you Mr. Penn) that allowed Obama to rack up 11 win straight unanswered by Sen. Clinton (if I remember correctly her logic of small states vs. real states was similar to the republicans' real america vs. the rest of america logic). The wins left the Clinton campaign with no possible way to mathematically win without running the board. Obama's campaign for their part made sure Sen. Clinton never accumulated multiple wins (which would have given her the media boost of a surge). I knew Sen. Clinton was done when Sen. Obama soundly won NC and the Indiana win for Sen. Clinton was a squeaker (by the way both were primary states as well as many of the 11 wins) instead of the sound win she had in PA (which she protested was her rallying call).

His win didn't come down to superdelegates or any of the insinuations that come from PUMA, rather just a costly misstep by Sen. Clinton. Ultimately, I would have more respect for PUMA if they had an 'actual' agenda other than spreading the seeds of doubt. If PUMA-ites supported Sen. Clinton because of her healthcare stance, then come up with a proper slate of concerns and write, push, speak on those concerns....if it was her exemplary stand on women's issues/pro-choice issues then PUMA needs to start speaking to those concerns...

ironically enough PUMAs showed during the general election they are not as strong as they would like to believe because they were unable to sway the general election in any sincere manner (by voting red or by sitting out)...