5.27.2008

Changing electoral maps, from Appalachia to the West

Barack Obama is now traveling to general election battleground states with increasing frequency, and his exchanges with John McCain are starting to generate as much press as his disputes with Hillary Clinton. Today's topics included the RNC blasting Obama for falsely claiming that his uncle liberated Auschwitz and McCain's proposal that Obama and him travel to Iraq together, a proposal Obama quickly rejected as nothing but "a stunt."

Still recovering from months of delegate calculations, proportional allocations, even-and-odd delegate districts and Excel spreadsheets, the Obama campaign is now turning to an altogether different sort of calculation: the electoral college. Here, there is no proportionality as it is (almost) all winner-take-all. And there is less of an opportunity to change the message depending on which states votes, since they all vote at the same time.

As I have been exploring in recent weeks, Obama's electoral map differs from that of Al Gore and John Kerry, which placed heavy emphasis on Eastern states in general, and Ohio and Florida in particular. Hillary Clinton would have relied on a similar map, and polls suggested that she was in a position to be more successful than her predecessors in both these states. But there is ample evidence that states might not be Obama's safest bets and that he should look elsewhere for his top-tier opportunities.

Naturally, Obama will have enough resources that he will compete in all states in which he could have a chance. The same could not be said of Kerry and Gore, and this is the Democrats' main advantage this election year. Gore, for instance, sacrificed Ohio; Kerry gave up on places like Missouri and focused on Ohio. But it would not be correct to conclude that Obama will not have to prioritize an electoral map. For one, he has limited time and he will have to choose the combination of states that he believes will get him to 270. Second, the way in which he frames his messages will have to be targeted at specific constituencies: Will Obama aim at capturing working-class white voters or more upscale independent-minded voters? Trying to keep a balance in the themes that are emphasized can end up satisfying no one. As long as he does not need a majority of both to win the election, Obama could be better-advised to pick a path and largely stick to it.

Finally, there is the very simple problem that, no matter how much Obama is campaigning there, Appalachia is not warming up to him at all. Obama outpsent Clinton in Ohio, in Pennsylvania and in North Carolina. By the time Kentucky and West Virginia voted, the nomination's competitive stage had long been over. Yet, Obama got trounced in all the Appalachian counties in these states -- including in the all-important states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Obama can spend as much money in WV and KY as he wants, but both states look to be as safe as it gets for John McCain. A new Rasmussen poll of Kentucky released yesterday shows Clinton leading McCain 51% to 42% in this red state (confirming that the Kentucky GOP is in bad shape, which we started seeing in the fall) but Obama is crushed 57% to 32%! That's a huge differential between the two Democrats. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Obama will have to make up in urban and suburban areas his weakness in rural counties.

While this does not mean that Obama will give up on OH and PA -- he certainly needs the latter if he wants to get to the White House and he certainly has the potential to boost Democratic turnout and appeal to Republican-voting upscale voters in places like Philadelphia or the Ohio suburbs -- it does suggest that Obama will make an effort to turn to the Mountain West and replace the emphasis on the East and the Midwest with an all-out effort in Colorado (9 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and Nevada (5 electoral votes). With all the Kerry states, these 19 electoral votes would get Obama to an electoral tie; add Iowa, the only 2004 Bush state that polls now suggest is leaning Democratic, and it is an electoral majority for the Illinois Senator.

Furthermore, Obama seeks to replace the Florida-Ohio strategy (which could lead to a more disastrous result this year than in cycles past) by replacing their 47 electoral votes with those of states that have not been in the map at all in past cycles, states like Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska and perhaps even an electoral vote in Nebraska! Note that polls do not show that Obama would be stronger than Clinton in North Carolina, but it seems safe to say that he will make a bigger play for that state than she would have.

In brief, Obama's changing the map is due to his relative weakness in the states that past Democratic nominees have put the emphasis on and his relative strength in places which they gave up on.

What makes the 2008 election particularly unpredictable is that McCain also changes the electoral map for Republicans, as his strengths and weaknesses are different from those of Bush
and those other Republicans would have brought to the table. Unlike his former nomination rivals, McCain can keep the Hispanic vote competitive and thus contest the 3 Western states (CO, NV and NM). Unlike Republicans who would have had more difficulty differentiating themselves from Bush, McCain can hope to convince independents who have given up on the GOP to still vote for him, allowing him to compete for independents in places like New Hampshire, upstate Virginia, Oregon and Washington.

And unlike Bush's strategy of turning out the base by polarizing the electorate, the trust McCain inspires among moderate Democrats could be higher than the one among conservative Republicans, which explains why McCain is confident that it can take advantage of Obama's weakness with blue-collar votes in the must-win Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. He just started airing ads in those two states, focused on economic issues. Polls have shown McCain to be surprisingly competitive in Michigan in particular, making it that much more important for Democrats to find a resolution to the delegate mess.

In other words, Obama and McCain both believe that their strengths make it imperative for them to focus on the Mountain West and on states like Virginia and New Hampshire; meanwhile, McCain will make sure to put in play Michigan and Pennsylvania because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and Obama will attempt a push in the deep South because to see whether he can boost black turnout. All of this at the expense of Florida and Ohio.

Labels: , ,

19 Comments:

  • First my usual caviate that until the Clinton campaign ends, and reaches the state of the Edwards and Huckabee ones, the head to head polls are just not very accurate. After June her campaign will soon be forgotten by the media and then by the voters much as the other campaigns are just memories.
    From June onward Obama will be able to use his remaining huge primary funds advantage solely against McCain in the battleground states. Thanks to the primary fight, he has an experienced and well trained campaingn organizations in every state.
    I was watching McCain last night, at an event prior to his Bush fundraiser, and noted some subtle changes in how he was being shown on the media. To me,the images made him seem frail, small, and nervious. He had Cindy supporting him while leaving a plane. He seem to have developed a nervios tic in his left eye and the use of "my friends" before and after every sentence make for mindnumbing speeches. I wonder if the protective media that seemed to always photograph him in the best light may be deserting him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 06:51  

  • 'nervous tic'?? I thought he was winking at the audience!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 08:59  

  • Personally I would say that Obama has a better chance of expanding the map for Democrats than McCain has for Republicans. Yes, McCain will be able to contest the southwestern states becasue he is from the southwest and because of his supposdely moderate immigration views, but of Course Bush won these states in 2004. South Carolina, Montana, Alaska and especially South Dakota and Virgina are former safe GOP states that will be more competive this year. Recent polls show McCain only being competive in states that have generally been seen as weakly democratic (PA and MI), not a single safe dem seat is now competive for Republicans. NJ used to the exception, but recent polls show McCain losing the state signficantly.

    Not that Obama should rest easy: Obama needs to gain states while McCain can just defend and can probably go on offense in MI and PA but the electoral map in terms of potential favors the Democrats.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 09:28  

  • I think after the summer you will see many people demanding change. Gas prices are going to remain high (how high, who knows?). The Iraq war doesn't look very promising for the GOP either. I remember in 1992 the American People said they did not want the same thing for another 4 years, which is why H.W. Bush got only 37.4% of the vote. Clinton was able to win red states like Montana, Colorado, Louisiana, Arkansas, Nevada, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Georgia.

    I think Obama will hold all states won by Kerry, with Michigan being the closest. I predict he will win Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada. I see the Dakotas being in play, along with Montana. I don't think he will be particularly strong in the South, but he won't do any worse than Kerry (or Gore). If the war takes another big turn for the worse, Florida, Virginia and the Carolinas could also come into play.

    Bottom line--Obama has some exhausting work to do, but once the American people reflect over the last 8 years, he should win the election. I think he will get between 300-330 electoral votes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 09:39  

  • Some people act like Obama has no chance in Florida or Ohio, that he is just hoping for Western states to make up for these automatic loses. Obama will be competitive in Florida, as well as Ohio.

    Folks also fail to mention that Obama has not had an organization in Florida yet and is still holding his ground in polling.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 09:42  

  • 'nervous tic'?? I thought he was winking at the audience!!!
    Why would he wink at the audience? Most audence members would be too far away to see. Maybe a shared secret! What he's saying isn't really the truth? At the time he was talking about his position of never surrendering in Iraq. It is interesting to see that others noted the eye movement.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 10:35  

  • I really don't think you could and should do the polling for the general election while Hillary remains in the race whether she will win or not. Voters may be distracted to give a more meaningful opinion about who should be elected in November. We may be better able to see the electoral picture once Hillary is out of the picture completely and voters become mroe worried about McCain's economic and foreign policies that they may flock to Obama rather than risk another Bush-style presidency.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 11:20  

  • I'm not sold on Obama performing well in Florida. A good portion of the electorate of Florida relates with McCain (elderly). Obama is seen as somewhat of a novelty (aka Clinton in 1992) in Florida, and he will have trouble winning this state. Not to say it's impossible being that Clinton did win Fla in 1996 (after 4 years in the White House).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 11:25  

  • Jim W, I think that a major reason why Bill Clinton won so many GOP states in 1992 was because of Perot (althrough Clinton would have still won the election overall even if Perot was out of the race)

    I also think your right on Florida and Obama. There is alot of old people in that state and they are very unlikely to come to turn to a fresh face like Obama.

    Overall I think that we have to see if next week there is alot of movment towards Obama, as the primaries will be over at that point and SDs, who want to wait until every vote is cast, will go to Obama and certify his win of the nomination.

    Also I think that this saturday the Democrats will copy what the Republicans did and restore half of the PDS in MI and FL and all of the SD votes, giving MI uncommitted to Obama.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 11:52  

  • I agree that Florida is probably out for Obama, but I have no doubt he'll strongly contest Ohio--and it'll be close there. I really don't think McCain's likely to take either PA or MI, either. Both states have fairly significant black and college-aged populations for Obama to tap, and for whom the war and the economy are huge issues--neither of which is McCain's strong suit. And, really, Obama's polling up in both right now, despite the still-contested nomination. In a month, his leads will be even more significant, and he'll be able to focus more fully on the west, Virginia, and Ohio.

    By Blogger Steve, At 28 May, 2008 13:00  

  • jaxx raxor,

    You gave a very good point concerning Perot. Although Perot siphoned about the same amount of votes from both Clinton and H.W. Bush, he definitely was the difference in places like Montana, Georgia and Colorado (likewise, Perot took more votes from Clinton in states like PA, Ohio, NH--won nonetheless by Clinton).

    I believe that the Dems need to concentrate not only on the Bush legacy, but also the leadership (or lack their of) of members of congress between 1995 and 2006. One of the main facets of the GOP in the 1990's was state-rights issues. Instead, the federal government has gotten bigger, not smaller, during this tenure. Of course, this may be playing fire with fire, but the current Democratic Congress has done a lot of good for a lot of people (specifically raising the minimum wage).

    I am a strong Democrat, but I've got to admit that I admire McCain for his spirit. I remember in 2001 during the tax cut debate that McCain was a voice of reason (sorry to bring up ancient history). He stood up for the people who questioned the intelligence of these cuts. He may have been making a statement to Bush, which is also okay. Of course, he's changed positions, but I can't fault him for doing such since he would have NO CHANCE of the GOP nomination if he looked too tax friendly. Bottom line, he's a better leader than Bush will ever be, but he's still not in the same league as Obama.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 13:07  

  • I honestly don't think the Democratic candidate gets to write any state off this year. I also don't think that the voters who let Hillary "trounce" McCain in the Appalachian corridor will forget which party primary they voted in.

    The Kerry states, definitely, with I'm sure some surprises when Barack runs on the coattails of some of our better Senate contenders.

    By Blogger Dave in Northridge, At 28 May, 2008 13:56  

  • Dave in Northridge,

    I'd be very surprised if Obama won Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas. Not to say it cannot happen, but these states will be hard pressed to vote for Obama instead of McCain.

    I think Obama can write off Kentucky and West Virginia, and probably Tennessee. Unless a miracle happens, these voters will not vote for him because of the large volume of blue collar workers. North Carolina will be a hard sell for Barack, too (part of Appalachia).

    Concerning your comment about Barack running on the coattails of some of the senate candidates, recent history doesn't support this argument. Usually its the other way around (aka Reagan in 1980, LBJ in 1964), where the Presidential candidate has coattails that extend to the congressional candidates (Perfect example in 1980 was when John East-Republican beat Robert Morgan-Democrat for the NC Senate seat). I think some of the candidates in the Deep South (aka Musgrove) are going to get some major help due to the outpouring of Barack supporters that have previously not voted.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 May, 2008 15:01  

  • "All of this at the expense of Florida and Ohio."

    This sums it up. His "50-state strategy" begins with 48 states by automatically ceding 47 electoral votes to McCain because it "belongs to the old map".

    Meanwhile, he thinks Colorado+Iowa+Nevada can make it for it, which is only 21 EV combined. zzzzzzz.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 May, 2008 00:10  

  • "Obama has not had an organization in Florida yet and is still holding his ground in polling."

    Really? Recent polling shows McCain+10 or so in Florida. That's totally holding the ground. In the same sense McCain is holding his ground in California and New Jersey too.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 May, 2008 00:12  

  • Anonymous--

    Obama probably won't win Florida. So what? Kerry could have won without Florida if he'd gotten Ohio. Obama might get Ohio. He might get Virginia. He might get Nevada. Etc. etc.

    And it's ridiculous to say that Obama is ceding the electoral votes in Florida and Michigan. First, he'll very probably win Michigan. (He certainly polls better there than Clinton does). Second, he'll contest Florida, even if it's likely a losing battle.

    By Blogger Steve, At 29 May, 2008 07:05  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:47  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:49  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:53  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home