The Electoral College map: How Obama or Romney could win

Recently we took a look inside the battleground states. Now that Mitt Romney has clinched the GOP nod, here's an early look at the whole map and some possible paths to 270 for him and Obama.

Though most of them are back in play, President Obama doesn't need to win all the states he carried four years ago to get to 270. So one could say he's got a cushion... or else that he's got a tough road ahead: Presidents who win second terms usually get more electoral votes in that re-election bid than they got on their first.* But what is clear is that the map offers multiple paths to victory for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

There are votes in play in each region of the country with 135 electoral votes in the top battleground states as of now - plenty to swing the race either way. The CBS News Election Unit can estimate 191 electoral votes might go Republican and 212 may go Democratic as of now, from states that are leaning or likely for each camp based on voting history, polling and their demographics. (see the map above)

Note that electoral clout moved a bit south and west since the last presidential election, along with the Americans who moved to the Sunbelt in droves, and it's shifted slightly away from the Northeast and Midwest. As a baseline, that's a bit of a loss to the Democrats. It isn't big enough to be noticed in a blowout, but it could be important in a tight race, especially one that looks as tight as this one may be.

Reliably Democratic states New York (-2) New Jersey (-1) and Massachusetts (-1) all lost. The big prize of California didn't add any. Electoral vote gains in places like reliably-Republican Texas (+4, the single biggest winner) and South Carolina (+1) give a little help to the GOP baseline going in. (see map at left)

Meanwhile, the battlegrounds of Florida (+2) and Nevada (+1) gained, adding to their importance, and perennial battlegrounds like Ohio (-2) and Pennsylvania (-1) also lost clout since last time. Florida is now worth more than Virginia and North Carolina combined, or Wisconsin and Michigan together.

The South and West epitomized the changes Mr. Obama made to the electoral map last time, and they could be pivotal again. Back in 2008, he seized on changing demographics in faster-growing southern states, notably North Carolina, Virginia and to some extent Florida, helped by better showings with upper-income suburbanites (many of whom had recently located to these areas) along with strong support from large proportions of African American voters, and some better-than-expected showings with rural whites.

That coalition will be a challenge to repeat, especially the latter part of it. Simply as an electoral math exercise, imagine all three states go back to Romney, giving him 57 votes. That would put pressure on Mr. Obama to hold the western battlegrounds, at a minimum, and then do well in the Midwest too. Conversely, hanging on to even one of them would give Mr. Obama's chances a real boost.

The western battlegrounds of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico have some similarities in their voting groups, too, most notably of course large numbers of Hispanic voters. To that point, New Mexico may be the most likely to stay blue if trends among Latino voters heavily favor Democrats by the fall. Although these three don't contain the electoral clout of those southern states - in fact, together not even as much as Florida - they do become important to Mr. Obama's math if he loses the whole south.

If those southern states go to Romney and Mr. Obama holds the West, Mr. Obama would probably need a very good Midwestern run of Wisconsin, Iowa, for example, and either Pennsylvania or Ohio to win. On the other hand, in that example, Romney would be close, and Iowa's six votes could flip it for Romney, as could New Hampshire's four.

In the Midwest, let's look at Ohio, specifically, for a moment. Historically, it has often been central to Republicans' chances at the White House, though a lot of that is from a time when the electoral map was more tilted east than it is today. Winning it would help Romney a lot, but there are scenarios in which he doesn't need it, if he breaks through and at least cherry-picks a few states across different regions.

For example: If Romney does well in the West - let's say, he wins Colorado and Nevada - and couples that with winning the South, including Florida, he'd be on his way. He could tack on Pennsylvania instead of Ohio and win the presidency or he could take Wisconsin and Iowa. Florida, perhaps even more so than Ohio, seems important to Romney's chances. Without it, he probably would need Ohio or wide success across the Midwest and the West, too.

A few quick last points:

There is no single state that starts off this race as clearly and solely determinative. And don't discount small states in a tight race. Even, perhaps, one of the single congressional district electoral votes allocated by Maine (which Romney may have a chance to get) or Nebraska (Mr. Obama won one of them last time.) And regional patterns could emerge as we move through the summer -- not only because of voting coalitions, but because of regional economic factors as well.

Remember, too, that early in presidential races campaigns usually try to define a map that's larger or more flexible then it will ultimately end up -- sometimes to force opponents to spend money defending territory, sometimes to rightly test the waters while there's still time and money. Michigan's 16 Electoral Votes lean Democratic at the start, given the demographic breakdown and vote patterns even if Mr. Obama falls off a bit from his 2008 levels, but a strong push from Romney would be worth watching. Arizona, with 11 Electoral Votes, is a state the Obama campaign had wanted to put in play last time and still reportedly has eyes on, but he'll need to move support even higher among Hispanic voters and reverse the falloffs he's seen among other groups to make that happen.

All told, the map is somewhat fluid, as we'd expect at this point. We need only look at 2008 when early on, it wasn't at all clear from the polls or the vote history that a Democrat could really win, for the first time in a long time, in places like Virginia or Indiana.

Note:

*Woodrow Wilson was the last to get fewer and win. This applies to second terms: FDR added in his second, but he then didn't match that for terms three and four. And the increase is not always dramatic; many come close to their firs total.

[Romneyobamalite]

Romney Obama lets see. That is like getting a rotten apple or a rotten banana for Christmas. I think I will just stay home and save my gas because I am probably going to need it which either one gets the nod. What a flipping joke these two are. Is this the best we can come up with in this going down the tube country?

[SeattleTruth]

There are too many people who can't find any jobs for Obama to win. Even if they are getting an unemployment check, they know in their hearts that a Republican president is the only viable way for them to eventually end up getting hired at any job. And all this rhetoric about the middle class, who seem to always be givernment workers, will be Obama's undoing. The poor person who can't even get the entry level job will make the difference in this election!!!

[Justiceserved]

Yes, the Bush economic policies we've had since 2001 and still have are working fine. And Romney's plans for an additional 5 trillion in deficit as well as making tax cuts permanent will do wonderfully added to 1 trillion he wants to add to military. Lower taxes, exploding deficit just like Bush. As a "job creator" I can tell you Econ 101 tells you about supply and demand and w/o a vibrant middleclass on down we do not hire extra employees because there is no demand. Build an infrastructure, rehire police, fire, and teachers, build hi-speed rail, expand internet, and strip military budget and make it work for Americans and you'll create jobs...everything the Rep. are against. Want to see austerity, low tax rates to attract overseas investments, and weak labor unions? It's called Ireland!

[Romneyobamalite]

Romney or Obama. They will both take us out. No difference between Repuds or Demos when it comes to spending and not cutting our debt. We are done for so stick a fork in us. Last one out turn out the lights.

[pleiku10]

With Black and Latino unemployment as high as 15%, don't be so sure that they are going to come out in droves for Obama- they want and need jobs that are not being produced under this dis-administration, and the outlook is only getting worse, read the business section and get real.

[pleiku10]

I don't see NH going for OBAMA, even with all the transplants from Mass.!!!!!!

[gep1955]

The thing to remember about jobs reports is to divide every number by 50 states. 69,000 new jobs = 1380 jobs per state avg. In a state with 34 mil like California, pretty meaningless. 330,000 new applications for unemployment = 6600 new poor per state..significant.

[TimeToEvolve]

The right wing media corporations need to keep the propaganda going to 1) make sure they try to get their Republicon plastic Wall Street puppet Robmee in and 2) make sure people stay ignorant of reality so they can sell more advertising and 3) make the sheeple think we actually have real elections anymore in America.

[Henry_Major]

They want to make the election appear close to get more people to consume their product, and to get more advertising revenue, both indirectly and directly from campaigns.

[AttyFAM]

This electoral breakdown of probabilities makes no sense whatsoever, and is at odds with the electoral map shown by Real Clear Politics.

First, New Mexico. The CBS article calls it a toss-up. But all the polls show it safely in the Obama camp with a 14 - 19 point lead. That is no toss-up.

Second, Pennsylvania. The CBS article calls it a toss-up. But the polls show Obama with an unwavering 6 - 8 point lead over many months.

Third, Missouri. The CBS article shows it as leaning Republican. But the latest poll (PPP) favors Obama by 1% and the poll before that (Rasmussen) gave Romney only a 3% lead. That is a toss-up state.

Real Clear Politics puts solid or leaning for Obama at 237 and solid or leaning for Romney 170. (I would make that 181, as Arizona is, in my view, leaning for Romney. As to Virginia, 4 out of 5 of the most recent polls give Obama the edge there, and I would tend to say it is leaning Democrat. Ohio? Five out of the last 6 polls put Obama in the lead. Wisconsin? All 5 of the polls taken in May give Obama the lead.

In view of all this, Obama has many more paths to victory than does Romney. The author of the CBS article is fantasizing for the Republicans.

[Romneyobamalite]

You might want to add to that all the Republicans that got a bad case of the hives at the Convention over the rule change that Romney and the GOP rammed through. You know the rule change that really made the Ron Paul and Tea Party supporters sprout horns for Romney. My guess is a lot of Republicans are going to sit this one out. I know I will. Unless we can get a third party candidate elected which will probably not happen in the next fifty years then I am done for. What is the use? There is no difference between either party when it comes to spending.

[AttyFAM]

This electoral breakdown of probabilities makes no sense whatsoever, and is at odds with the electoral map shown by Real Clear Politics.

First, New Mexico. The CBS article calls it a toss-up. But all the polls show it safely in the Obama camp with a 14 - 19 point lead. That is no toss-up.

Second, Pennsylvania. The CBS article calls it a toss-up. But the polls show Obama with an unwavering 6 - 8 point lead over many months.

Third, Missouri. The CBS article shows it as leaning Republican. But the latest poll (PPP) favors Obama by 1% and the poll before that (Rasmussen) gave Romney only a 3% lead. That is a toss-up state.

Real Clear Politics puts solid or leaning for Obama at 237 and solid or leaning for Romney 170. (I would make that 181, as Arizona is, in my view, leaning for Romney. As to Virginia, 4 out of 5 of the most recent polls give Obama the edge there, and I would tend to say it is leaning Democrat. Ohio? Five out of the last 6 polls put Obama in the lead. Wisconsin? All 5 of the polls taken in May give Obama the lead.

In view of all this, Obama has many more paths to victory than does Romney. The author of the CBS article is fantasizing for the Republicans.

[bigmanfrommaine]

if this article doesn't prove the idiocy of the electoral college, nothing will.

[Takyon]

With all due respect, I would probably change two aspects of this article's electoral map:

1) New Mexico's status could be changed from "swing state" to at least "lean Democrat". Poll have been showing strong-ish support for Obama among residents of NM and the employment rate there is doing better than the national average.

2) Oregon's status could be changed from "likely Democrat" to "lean Democrat". A recent poll done by SurveyUSA (a super-reliable organization) showed the POTUS leading by only 4%, and the unemployment rate in that state could be better. It may be a stretch but considering the lack of ethnic diversity in Oregon, Romney has a chance to appeal to the Caucasian baby-boomers of that state with his messages about both the economy and health-care.

Regardless, this race will be closer than either liberals or conservatives are willing to admit.