February 29, 2008
Electoral Map Update (2/29)
Since Hillary’s campaign is basically done unless she can pull of miracle victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, I poured all my resources into the McCain vs. Obama map for this update.
The map is really beginning to fill in now — let’s take a look (colors are based on averages of the most recent state polls):
This represents a 50 EV shift from the 2004 map in favor of the Democrats so far, making the presumed totals Obama-302; McCain-216; Tie-20.
Check below the fold for polls used for each state.
Alabama
McCain +24 (SUSA)
Arizona
McCain +22 (Ras)
California
Obama +27 (SUSA)
Colorado
Obama +7 (Ras)
Connecticut
Obama +8 (Quin)
Florida
McCain +10 (M-D); McCain +16 (Ras); McCain +2 (Quin)
Average: McCain +9
Illinois
Obama +21 (R2000)
Iowa
Obama +17 (DMR); Obama +3 (Ras); Obama +10 (SUSA)
Average: Obama+10
Kansas
McCain +6 (SUSA)
Kentucky
McCain +19 (SUSA)
Maryland
Obama +6 (Ras)
Massachusetts
Obama +2 (SUSA)
Michigan
Obama +8 (Ras); Obama +5 (Selz)
Average: Obama +6.5
Minnesota
Obama +15 (SUSA); Obama +15 (Ras)
Average: Obama +15
Missouri
Obama +6 (SUSA); McCain +2 (Ras); Obama +5 (R2000)
Average: Obama +3
New Hampshire
Obama +13 (Ras)
New Jersey
Obama +7 (Quin)
New Mexico
Obama +15 (SUSA); Tie (Ras)
Average: Obama +7.5
New York
Obama +21 (SUSA); Obama +7 (Siena)
Average: Obama +14
North Carolina
McCain +10 (JWP Inst)
Ohio
McCain +1 (Ras); Obama +3 (SUSA); McCain +2 (Quin)
Average: Tie
Oregon
Obama +1 (SUSA); Obama +9 (Ras)
Average: Obama +5
Pennsylvania
Obama +2 (Quin); McCain +1 (F&W); Obama +10 (Ras)
Average: Obama +3.7
Rhode Island
Obama +12 (Brown)
Tennessee
McCain +16 (MTSU)
Texas
McCain +8 (SUSA); McCain +8 (CNN)
Average: McCain +8
Virginia
McCain +5 (Ras); Obama +6 (SUSA)
Average: Obama +0.5
Washington
Obama +7 (SUSA)
Wisconsin
Obama +1 (Ras); Obama +10 (SUSA)
Average: Obama +5.5
http://race42008.com/2008/02/29/electoral-map-update-229/trackback/
February 29th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
IA, MN, and WI are all going to go Obama. All three are trending blue regardless of the candidate. Obama turns them dark blue. McCain needs PA to make up for it.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
MN and WI went for Kerry. IA is the only loss in the upper midwest.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Hello, Matt C-
I applaud your considerable efforts in the creation of the map. My thoughts:
The silver lining is that among the states you have not yet filled in, any Republican would likely carry most of them w/o trouble. McCain would be guaranteed to carry the following blank states regardless of the Dem opponent: Alaska, Nebraska, Utah, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, Indiana, and Oklahoma. That makes the math look a lot better. (I suspect one reason that those states haven’t been polled extensively is that fact that they generally aren’t competitive in presidential elections.) My reasoning - Clinton failed to carry any of them while winning easily on a national basis.
McCain also would be heavily favored to win in Georgia, Montana, and Louisiana (all carried by GWB twice but also carried by Bill Clinton at least once). West Virginia and Arkansas are trickier, particularly with the possibility of facing HRC, who would be expected to carry Arkansas.
Also, among the blank states, the only guaranteed ones for Obama are Hawaii and Vermont. He would be favored in Maine, but it’s not hopeless for McCain (he’ll run well in New England, at least by Republican standards). Among the blue ones, McCain will certainly be competitive in Nevada and New Mexico and Colorado. Plus Maine awards two votes by CD, so he could pick up one even if he doesn’t win statewide there.
Thoughts…
February 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
ENHQ,
Thanks for the compliment.
Those “presumed totals”, though, are what the totals would be if every unfilled state breaks the same way as it did in 2004. Thus, McCain has to carry all those states you mentioned just to get to 216.
The problem is that Obama (so far - and this can and probably will change) has taken NV, IA, CO, MO and VA away from the GOP, and OH is on the brink. PA is the only blue state that looks in reach (again, right now) for us to try and make up some of those losses.
I fully expect that to shift many times over the next several months, but that’s where it is right now.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
It looks like we’re not seeing a dramatic change from 2004. If Pennsylvania is close, I wonder if that means McCain has some potential among moderate Democrats who would vote for Clinton over Obama in the primary.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
#5-
this is actually some pretty substantial change from 2004. From 2000 to 2004, I believe only Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico switched sides. Only three states, and they’re all pretty small. Virginia switching is huge, let alone possibly Ohio.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Hello, Matt C- per #4-
My thoughts-
Obviously, there’s a certain baseline toward victory. Essentially, if McCain would have trouble carrying any of the first group of states I listed (all of which Bill Clinton failed to carry either time), he might as well fold his tents right now. So I’m banking on 216 (and if he can’t bank on those 216, there’s no way to win).
Per the red states that you mentioned (Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, and Virginia) where Obama now leads:
Virginia is unusual, given that I think it’s the only state that Clinton failed to carry twice AND also that would be competitive in this cycle. However, given McCain’s appeal in the Northern Va. suburbs in the primary, and the huge Navy presence in the state, I think he holds it. (He has to. There’s no way for him to win without carrying it.)
Colorado has to be won, due to its size and the fact that it was not competitive in either 2000 or 2004. Nevada and New Mexico are not large, but given McCain’s political base in the Southwest, I’d hope he’d be able to keep them.
Missouri - another one that would be hard to replace.
Iowa - this is a Democratic state in presidential races, by and large (before 2004 - Dukakis carried it in 1988 and it went Democratic in 1992, 1996, and 2000). Given Obama’s strong showing in the caucuses and McCain’s weakness in them, I doubt we’d contest it…
You undoubtedly noticed that Obama has only a two-point lead in Massachusetts (which I don’t understand)…
Pennsylvania and Ohio are the only two major states where I think McCain might (might, not would) run better against Obama than against HRC. No Republican has EVER won nationally without Ohio, and it’s hard to replace its 20 votes - unless McCain can flip Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was close in both 2000 and 2004 (5% for Gore and 3% for JFK II)…
Thoughts?
February 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Virginia might have been off limits to the Dems in the past, but demographically it’s a far different state now than ever. If Obama takes Keane as his VP, I’m pretty sure he takes VA along with him.
Then even if McCain takes the Western states and somehow Ohio forgets about their double-digit unemployment and votes GOP again, Obama still wins.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Unless you believe that Massachusetts really is within 2 points (I don’t), that makes Pennsylvania the reddest blue state in America.
McCain really needs to go all out for Pennsylvania and Ohio. If he can nail those down, and bring Missouri and Virginia back into the fold, he’ll have 281 EVs and the win.
I don’t think McCain has much of a shot at MN/WI/IA in a close election against Obama because those states have a strong tradition of man-crushes on socialist candidates. (Can a state have a man-crush? Wouldn’t it be a state-crush? No matter.) If Obama collapses due to his socialist tendencies, his anti-America rhetoric, his support for post-birth abortion, and his foreign policy cluelessness, he’ll probably lose by a landslide and the Electoral College won’t matter. But in a close election, McCain should aim for the working-class Catholics in OH and PA and the pro-military voters in MO and VA and forget about MN/IA/WI.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
If you weren’t so tired of me saying it, I would tell you that six of the ones you have blue would be turned red if Mitt were on the ticket. Washington, Oregon, NM, Nevada, Colorado, and Michigan. And I think he helps in other states too, because right now the polls are reflecting that an ‘almost became democrat’ guy is the head of the ticket, and we greatly need a true conservative on the ticket to energize that part of the ticket. And I don’t mean somebody that nobody knows their name like I hear on here all the time.
Anyway, but since you think I say this too much, I’m not going to say it….
February 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Obviously I don’t think Massachusetts is within 2 points, but it may be much, much closer than the Bush-Kerry or Bush-Gore outcomes. For one thing McCain is more palatable to New Englanders than Bush is (though I don’t really know why). Secondly, Massachusetts voted overwhelmingly for Hillary this time, and I am wondering if they aren’t hot for Obama. I am wondering if it is a Deval Patrick backlash. Patrick won against two more moderate Democrats last time and has turned out to not be a very good Governor, and Obama may remind voters in that state of Patrick. And that is NOT because they are both black. That might be part of it, but it’s also that they’re brand of politics are very similar. Both are very liberal, but they package it in hope and bipartisanship and things the public likes.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Also, regardless of what the polls say now, I think Michigan is very much in play for McCain. In the case of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Mike Dukakis won all three of them, and he did much better relative to his national performance than Bill Clinton did. Mondale also did very well relative to his national performance in those places. The same seems to be true of Washington and Oregon. I think in those 5 states, IA, WI, MN, WA, and OR, it is actually a general election plus to be a liberal Democrat as opposed to a centrist one. I’m not sure if any other states are like that. That contrasts with states like TN, AR, or LA where centrist Democrats do better in Presidential races than liberals do. Nationwide, I think centrist Democrats do better, but in the 5 states I named, liberal Democrats actually do better. I’m not exactly sure why that is, but general election results indicate that.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Lots of good stuff here… in turn…
#9 DaveG-
More good analysis. I would agree that McCain’s chances in the Upper Midwest of Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin would be a lot better if he faced HRC. However, he would need to concentrate on Missouri and Virginia, regardless of whom he faced. With the very real possibility of losing Ohio, there aren’t any more mid-sized red states that McCain can afford to lose.
#10 - Illinoisguy-
I understand that you’re a Mitt enthusiast and I respect that fact. But there is no VP candidate in America who would help his/her ticket win half a dozen states. It is far from certain that the VP candidate would even swing his/her home state. My first choice would be Pawlenty, right now, but the fact that he might help bring along Minnesota is only one factor in that.
#11/#12 clarence-
McCain’s going to have a limited amount of money. They would not contest Massachusetts under any circumstances, unless they were heading for a Reagan/Bush-esque landslide victory. Per Michigan - its purple status is undeniable - but MI isn’t a very good environment for a Republican right now. The fact that he refused to pander to the state in the primary was admirable on principle but likely doomed any chance of seriously contesting it during the general. Plus, it’s a big state w/ expensive media markets.
Thoughts?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I don’t think MA is within 2, but I do think it is closer than Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry. Most of that, I imagine, would be due to the fact that McCain is seen as being much more secular and much less religious than Bush — less ties to the religious right, that kind of thing, that would make him more palatable in the Northeast.
However, it’s that same reason that puts West Virginia in play this year, I fear — and I am really anxious to see a poll from that state sometime. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by 2:1 in WV (60% to 30%). The main reason they went for Bush twice in a row (WV was a blue state prior to 2000) was that even the Democrats in WV tend to be very religious and pretty socially conservative when it comes to religious issues. This was the state, after all, that “someone” mailed out fliers stating that Gore would take everyone’s Bibles and guns away if he were President, and that combination scared enough Appalachian folks into voting GOP.
With McCain’s self-admitted apathy and ambivalence toward social and religious issues, if Obama plays his cards right he could make a run for WV as well.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
ElectionNightHQ, you said that McCain did not pander to Michigan. Obama didn’t even campaign there and does not want to seat their delegates! Also, I was not suggesting McCain would contest Massachusetts. He would only win Massachusetts if it was a landslide, and in that case he wouldn’t need it anyway. I was just making the observation that Obama might not have as much appeal in Massachusetts as other Democrats do because Patrick is unpopular and Obama’s political style is very similar to Patrick’s.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
MattC, I don’t know why people think Bush is more solid than McCain on social issues. John McCain has at least stated he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I wanted so badly to hear Bush say that once during his 2000 and 2004 campaigns, and he never would. I saw him get asked that question so many times and dodge it everytime. They did successfully target WV though. A lot of it had to do with guns and environmental issues. Kerry was an especially poor match for West Virginia also.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
And Illinoisguy is right. Mitt is very popular in western states. He got like 20% of the vote in a Washington state PRIMARY after he dropped out. He could solidify western states and help with Michigan. Many candidates have picked running mates they did not personally care for. Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush, Dole/Kemp
February 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Yes, Mitt would help in the West, Mid-West, and even maybe a little in the NorthEast.
However, I think Mitt made a serious mistake in dropping out so soon. He was solidifying the Conservatives behind him. He spent the entire campaign telling the Conservatives that he would never run out on them. Then just as they were starting to trust him and coalesce around him, what does he do? He runs out on them! Not smart. Not smart at all.
If Mitt was on the ticket, it definitely helps solidify the West. It returns Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. It would likely pull in Washington and Oregon. It might even make California competitive, but I wouldn’t count on it.
It would really help McCain to have Romney on his ticket. It would prove that he could rise above it for the greater good.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Re: Mass. A lot of it has to do with how poorly Obama runs among traditional New Deal Democrat voters, i.e., white Catholics of Irish and Italian descent, etc. Mass. is full of them and so is Rhode Island; Hillary won Mass. and is about to win RI by a mile despite Obamamania being at its peak. Obama is just the sort of Democrat that makes the New Dealers run in droves. And McCain is secular enough on social issues and pragmatic enough on fiscal issues to pick them up. McCain wins a lot of the Scoop Jackson Democrats in a race against Obama, and there are lots of them in certain parts of the NE.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“Kerry was an especially poor match for West Virginia also.”
Very true. Thankfully for Republicans, Obama is no better of a match.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I believe that CT and NJ will be in play for McCain in November. What do you guys think?
March 1st, 2008 at 5:05 am
I can’t imagine West Virginia mountain folk being sucked into Obamamania and voting for a black guy. Just a thought.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
mark - I was just as disappointed as you to see Mitt drop out when he did. However, it would be hard to conceive of him doing so without a great deal of praying. I would say this: I think Mitt would be more electable after first serving four years as VP than he would have been this year. Not because his credentials changed, because he obviously had the best already, but because people would have time to get used to the idea of having a Mormon as President. Having said that, I think he was electable this year also, but I would admit possibly not as electable as McCain with Mitt Romney on the ticket with him. That’s a powerful ticket that can’t be matched by any of those who the people don’t even know, and those that have not been fully vetted.
I know I’m just one person, but there is no doubt in my mind that Mitt brings more voters to McCain than anyone else out there.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
If McCain loses in a rout, then how many close Senate seats go Democratic due to the rout. How close will the Democrats get to 60 seats in the Senate?
A states map like the one above mean that the Republican party will soon be irrelevant to politics in America and the U.S. will soon be a one party state.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
EHQ, isn’t VA currently governed by a Democrat who has a high approval rate? I will grant to you that this Democrat (what’s his name?) is more of a blue-dog Democrat than liberal Democrat of the likes of Kennedy and Obama, but still, the governor could go a long way toward getting his people to think Obama will be better on economy than McCain. The least he need to do is to play tape where McCain declared he does not know economy.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Robbie (#22) As I understand it, there are three types of WVA folks — the religious folks in the southern part, the mountain people in the NW part and the urban populance in the east. True, the NW part won’t go for Obama, but many of the social conservatives in the south may, since they know very well where McCain stand on various social issues. Then, we can forget about the eastern people, as they definitely will go for Obama. I think it’ll be a much closer race than we have seen in the past.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Pete (#21) How come CT and NJ may be in the play for McCain? I think the trend of those states the past few years (state legislatives and other state officers) have been moved toward left. I think those states will remain out of McCain’s reach.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I do not see any post here that Obama is supposed to have raised over 50 millions for the month of Feb, and Clinton, over 30 millions. Where is McCain with his fund-raising? It’s due yesterday.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm
SGS 12 Million for McCain.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Grandma T, Thanks!