This author has commented before about the fact that the Midwest, an area of declining electoral votes and representation in Congress, because of the rapid migration from the “Frost Belt” to the “Sun Belt”, remains an area that has had a dramatic effect on American politics and Presidential elections.
Ohio and Missouri have been the ultimately accurate states to predict elections, with Missouri only voting with the loser twice—1956 and 2008—and Ohio, also only twice with the loser—1944 and 1960—since 1900.
And now, with Obama clearly winning Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois, and seemingly ahead in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, the President could afford to lose the three Southern states he won in 2008—Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina—and still win the Electoral College.
With 237 electoral votes in Obama’s camp, and only needing 33 more, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin would give him 34, raising his total to 271, exactly what George W. Bush won in 2008, against Al Gore, who won the national popular vote by more than 500,000 votes.
With some observers seeing a popular vote surge to Mitt Romney, we could be witnessing a scenario of the same situation as in 2000- –the winner of the electoral vote NOT winning the popular vote, which would make it the fifth time in history, and the second time in 12 years, that such a situation occurred.
The difference is that this time the Democrat will have benefited, while the last time, the Republican benefited.
In a way, if that happened, it would be “justice” for Al Gore supporters and Democrats!
However, it would also lead to growing demands to change the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College, with the reality being that the likelihood of such a change is near zero!