Second electoral ratings: Five changes all favor Obama

Two weeks have passed since my first electoral ratings found a tight electoral college race, with 15 states making up the initial batch of battleground states. Since then, the general election has been heating up and the candidates have engaged in tense back-and-forth on issues ranging from energy policy to terrorism. There have also been a number of polls released in the interval, not all of which have confirmed the conventional wisdom.

I will attempt to update ratings every two weeks (and every week once we get closer to the election) to maintain a continuous history. As I wrote last time, these are based on a mixture of polling data, considerations of which states parties are likely to invest in, the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and voting and registration patterns of each state since 2004. Thus, a low double-digits in a poll is not synonymous with likely category, and it will not descend to the "lean" group as soon as a poll shows a single-digit margin. (For electoral ratings that are based on stricter formulas, check the always-excellent Electoral-Vote and FiveThirtyEight.)

For instance, a recent AR poll might have shown a 9% lead for McCain, but the state remains in the "safe" category for now. Not only is one survey not enough to shift a state, but not all 9% leads are equal: Obama's very high unfavorability numbers in that AR poll suggest that he might have reached a ceiling he can only rise in case of a huge boost in black turnout. Until we see whether Obama is committed to such an effort in this particular state, there is no point in upgrading Arkansas to a more competitive category.

Without further delay, here are the second 2008 electoral college ratings (states whose ratings have been changed are in bold). Remember that states that are in the "lean" category are still considered to be very competitive and certain to be hotly contested, but it is possible to say that one candidate has a slight edge at this time.

• Safe McCain: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska (at large + 3rd congressional district), Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming (87 EVs)

• Likely McCain: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (1st and 2nd congressional districts), North Dakota, Texas (87 EVs)

• Lean McCain: Florida, North Carolina (42 EVs)

• Toss-up: Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia (84 EV)

• Lean Obama: Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (55 EVs)

• Likely Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, Washington (97 EVs)

• Safe Obama: DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont (86 EVs)

This gives us the following map (courtesy of the Washington Post's interactive feature, though I was not able to color lean states a lighter shade) and totals:

• Safe + Likely Obama: 183 electoral votes
• Safe + Likely + Lean Obama: 238
• Toss-up: 84
• Safe + Likely + Lean McCain: 216
• Safe + Likely McCain: 174

I will naturally not attempt to provide an explanation for every single one of these ratings and will concentrate instead on the four that have shifted over the past two weeks.

Arizona, Safe McCain to Likely McCain: Perhaps this is a case of an over-eager media looking for a story, but it is hard not to notice the abundance of articles questioning whether John McCain is a sure bet in his home-state, including recent pieces in The Christian Science Monitor and in CQ. The Senator's surprisingly low percentage in the state primary (he beat Mitt Romney by 12%) raised red flags as to his rocky relationship with Arizona's conservative base. The latest poll has an 11% margin and Obama could spell real trouble for McCain if he solidifies the Hispanic vote. The Republican remains heavily favored, if only because Obama is unlikely to push too hard. If he does lose here, however, would that push him towards the retirement in 2010?

Missouri, Lean McCain to Toss-up: The polls showing a tight race between the two candidates were available two weeks ago and were only confirmed by two surveys released since that showed Obama barely edging out McCain. What changed was my confidence that the Obama campaign will not give up on contesting Missouri. In 2004, the Kerry campaign pulled out of the state in October -- though it was certainly never their top priority -- and ended up losing by 7%. This year, the Obama campaign will certainly have enough money to not have to pull out and given their determination to not have to rely on Ohio and Florida they will make sure to push hard in other states that are ripe for pick-up. The fact that Missouri's gubernatorial race right now is an open seat in which the Democratic candidate is polling 20% ahead also tells us a lot about the dismal environment the GOP is facing.

Wisconsin, Toss-up to Lean Obama: Barack Obama is polling well in the "Dukakis five," states with traditional Democratic roots that had been more competitive in the past few cycles. By posting strong leads in Washington, Minnesota in particular, he is demonstrating that the shift in voters' partisan breakdown towards an increased identification with the Democratic Party is making it very difficult for the GOP to contest in states that have a slight blue lean in a neutral environment. Obama is posting narrow leads in Wisconsin, though the latest Badger poll showed him up by double-digits. Neither candidate is likely to create much space here in the coming months -- remember that Wisconsin really seemed lost to the Kerry campaign in the summer and fall of 2004 -- but Obama starts off with a slight edge.

Pennsylvania, Toss-up to Lean Obama: There is a reason Obama unveiled John Edwards's and Al Gore's endorsements in Michigan rather than in Pennsylvania: The Keystone State is no longer the main target for Republicans anxious to pick-up a blue state. Kerry's margin here in 2004 was smaller than Bush's in Ohio, but the state has shifted in the past four years. The Democratic tsunami ended up submerging PA Republicans more than it did their OH counterparts and the heated Clinton-Obama showdown gave both Democratic contenders weeks of exposure. Hundred of thousands of new voters registered as Democrats or switched their party registration, providing Obama with an increased base, and it's hard to ignore Quinnipiac's insistence that Obama

However, that Obama starts off with a slight edge does not mean that this state does not remain very competitive. If the Illinois Senator ends up weak among blue-collar voters, it will have a major impact on Pennsylvania and McCain will seize on every opportunity to gain in the state's rural regions. And the suburban areas remain a mystery, as Obama performed unexpectedly weakly in Philly's suburbs on April 22nd. The situation here is similar as the one in Florida: Both states will be hotly contested by both parties but it's hard to not think that they would go in opposing camps if the election were held today (I am aware of today's polls that show Obama slightly ahead in FL though I have not changed my rating. More discussion of FL will come in due course).

Massachusetts, Likely Obama to Safe Obama: This is the exception to my rule that ratings will not shift based on a single poll. This state was one of the biggest disappointments for the Obama campaign on February 5th, and he has been polling stunningly weak general election numbers ever since, barely edging out McCain in a series of SUSA polls. Yet, and while it appears likely that Hillary Clinton's margin of victory would have been far greater than Obama's, the latest poll released by Suffolk does show Obama distancing McCain by 23%. The thought of Massachusetts's general election being competitive is too ludicrous for me to entertain it without a constant stream of evidence, so this state is moving back where it should be -- though we will keep a close eye on it.

History of Campaign Diaries' electoral ratings:

• June 18th: +22 Obama (238 for Obama [183 base, 55 lean] and 216 for McCain [174, 42])
• June 4th: +20 McCain (207 for Obama [183, 24] and 227 for McCain [174, 53])

McCain's map and the electoral college

Showcasing its general election strategy, the McCain campaign released data, slides and maps from a recent strategy briefing. The material confirmed that McCain will portray Obama as "outside the mainstream" and will seek to use his opponent's clear problems in the Appalachia (which include Southeastern Ohio and Southwestern Pennsylvania) to take control of states that Democrats are hoping to contest. The campaign also released the following electoral map of the states it believes the candidate will be able to strongly contest:


The extent to which both parties believe they will be able to "change the map" this cycle is remarkable, especially when we consider that this was one of Obama's main electability arguments against the more traditional approach of the Clinton campaign. McCain's map is most in terms of what is left out and the two surprising states that are included. First, notice the exclusion of:

• Red states that the Obama campaign is planning on contesting, starting with Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina, in what is an attempt to downplay Obama's competitiveness in traditionally Republican areas. Note how confident McCain sounded today when asked about Virginia's new status as a swing state. "We will win," he insisted.
  
• Florida and West Virginia, traditional swing states which the GOP is a bit more confident of carrying with Obama bearing the Democratic mantle.
• Washington and Oregon, traditional swing states which McCain is said to want to compete but which Obama will have an easier time defending than Clinton would have.
• New Jersey, Iowa and Minnesota, states in which polls find a tight race and which the GOP is committed to contesting (particularly if McCain chooses Gov. Pawlenty), so I am puzzled as to their exclusion.

The exclusion of Minnesota and Iowa when Michigan is included confirms that MI will be at the center of McCain's campaign and should be considered as one of the most important battles of the campaign, along with PA and OH. Obama could conceivably lose the latter two but get to the White House through a less conventional route, but the loss of all three states would surely be fatal to Democratic hopes.

Furthermore, the exclusion of those two states and of New Jersey's is striking considering the campaign's choice to list California and Connecticut, two states which conventional wisdom (and polls) rate as more safely anchored in the Democratic camp. While the map-changing potential of McCain's appeal to independents is undeniable, it is hard to envision that it could lead the Republican to an upset in the Golden State without first putting him on top in a state like Oregon.

In fact, California's inclusion can be best described as an effort by Republicans to get Democrats worried about the state, forcing them to spend resources defending this must-win state instead of setting their sights in more interesting contests. The GOP sets a similar trap every 4 years, though Democrats rarely fall for the trick; in 2000, Al Gore did not revisit his campaign plans to defend California and it is George Bush who wasted the most time pretending like the contest there was competitive. Expect the McCain campaign to continue making a similar case in the coming months.

Yet, it is most likely that Republicans will have no money to actually contest the state and actually move numbers. This is why McCain has to settle for the minimal strategy of convincing the press that California could swing and thus propagate a narrative that will (the GOP hopes) lead Democrats to panic and play defense. Indeed, Republicans are at a major financial disadvantage this year, and given Obama's financial advantage it would not be that much of an inconvenience for him to drop a few millions in the Golden State to make sure its 55 electoral votes are safely in his column.

In fact, Obama's financial advantage should allow Democrats to play the same trick on Republicans in McCain's must-win states. And since Obama will have plenty of money, he will be able to spend some of it in places like Texas and Arizona to test McCain's vulnerabilities (while the GOP can do little else than leak strategy briefings). If Democrats are successful in moving these races within single-digits, they would tie McCain down to playing defense in states he cannot afford to lose.

First electoral college ratings: It's a toss-up

Now that primary contests have come to an end, the time has come for the first electoral map ratings. Of course, if there is a popular vote blowout on either direction, careful electoral college calculations will be much less important, but until then the campaign has to be thought of as a collection of 51 contests that ought to be considered on a state by state basis.

The states have been divided in seven categories and rated as "safe," "likely," "lean" or "toss-up" states. A state that is rated as likely should not be considered competitive at this time but there is a conceivable scenario under which it could become so in the next few months. For instance, Obama should not envision picking-up Texas and McCain should not expect to be close in California, but it would not be surprising if polls end up tighter than expected. On the other hand, the 15 "lean" and "toss-up" states are where most of the action will be in over the next few months.

These ratings are based on a mixture of polling data, considerations of which states both parties are likely to invest in, Obama and McCain's respective strengths and weaknesses and the voting and registration patterns of each state since 2004. In other words, they are meant to be a snapshot of the present moment and we can expect a lot of changes in the coming months. These ratings will eventually be updated weekly, but there is no need for that frequent re-evaluations for now, so we will stick to an update every two weeks at most.

Without further delay, here are the first 2008 electoral college ratings:

• Safe McCain: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska (at large + 3rd congressional district), Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming (97 EVs)

• Likely McCain: Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (1st and 2nd congressional districts), North Dakota, Texas (77 EVs)

• Lean McCain: Florida, Missouri, North Carolina (53 EVs)

• Toss-up: Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin (104 EV)

• Lean Obama: Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota (24 EVs)

• Likely Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, Washington (107 EVs)

• Safe Obama: DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont (76 EVs)

This gives us the following totals:

• Safe + Likely Obama: 183 electoral votes
• Safe + Likely + Lean Obama: 207
• Toss-up: 104
• Safe + Likely + Lean McCain: 227
• Safe + Likely McCain: 174

Of the toss-up states, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio look to be the holy trio of the 2008 election (Michigan has for the time being replaced the Sunshine state) but Barack Obama has carved himself an alternative route to the presidency that does not require him to carry Ohio. With Iowa leaning to his side, he needs a combination of the Western states, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado (I recently discussed this more in detail here).

The 9 toss-up states are made up of 4 states won twice by George Bush (CO, NV, OH and VA), 3 states that both John Kerry and Al Gore carried (MI, WI and PA) and two states that split their decision in 2000 and 2004 (NH and NM). If I had a gun pointed to my head and had to allocate these 104 electoral votes, I would say it is most likely at this point that Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania for 273 electoral votes while McCain would carry Nevada, Ohio and Virginia for 265 electoral votes. As I said, this all presupposes that the national numbers remain as tight as they are today, for a blowout election would likely lead one party to snatch all these 104 electoral votes and score some upsets on the list of "likely" states.

Also, a few explanatory notes on some of my other ratings, starting with Massachusetts. It seems very unlikely that this state, which many dub as the most Democratic in the country, would give itself to John McCain, particularly given how low Bush's approval rating is here. But there have been too many polls showing Obama polling weaker than he ought to for me to move the state in the safe column for now. SUSA has consistently shown Obama barely edging out McCain while Rasmussen has repeatedly shown him considerably weaker than Hillary Clinton.

Florida, meanwhile, is one of the rare states in which it seems hard to dispute that Hillary Clinton would have been in better shape than her opponent. Numerous polls have shown Obama struggling against McCain, and some of the constituencies that the Illinois Senator has the most trouble in and that McCain believes he can win over (older voters, Hispanics) are key to Florida politics.

As for the Southern states, the Obama campaign looks to be serious about planning a registration drive in states in which past nominees have fared extremely poorly like Georgia and Mississippi. The problem for Obama is that any surge in black turnout could be negated by increased racial polarization in the electorate and white voters turning even more away from Democrats than they have in the past, but the campaign's determination to test these states is enough to warrant their move to the "likely" column. The Obama campaign has even more promising grounds in North Carolina and in Virginia, where high black turnout coupled with outreach to independent-minded voters could result in upsets.

There are two more regions of interest. First, the Mountain West, where a number of states which were never mentioned in 2000 and 2004 (MT, NE, ND) could be in play in 2008 though the GOP's dominance in this region make them tough states to crack. Second, Appalachia, where West Virginia and Kentucky would have both been rated much more competitively had Hillary Clinton been the Democratic nominee as this region is definitely the only one in the country in which Obama looks unlikely to make numbers move.

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.