The Candidates
Featured Archives
Much has been made of Barack Obama’s potential to put traditionally Republican states in play for the upcoming November election. Yet, there is a strong distinction between garnering new votes and securing votes in the most crucial states. It may well be true that Obama can narrow the margins of the 2004 election in states such as Indiana (60%-40%), Nebraska (66%-33%), and North Carolina (56%-44%), but he cannot stake claim to the electability crown unless he wins these states. We are not playing horseshoes or tossing hand grenades; a 51%-49% loss does not garner Obama a single electoral vote.
As much as it may pain us, we must grant Hillary Clinton credit for realizing that she fares best against John McCain in the states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Polls must be taken with a grain of salt this early in the campaign, but the averages compiled by RealClearPolitics are revealing: Hillary is ahead of McCain by 5% in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and pulls even with him in Florida. Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, is down by 2.6% in Ohio, deadlocked in Pennsylvania, and is soundly defeated in Florida by 11.7%.
Since 1900, no successful presidential candidate outside of John F. Kennedy has ever captured the White House without winning at least two of these three states. 1960 stands as a anomaly, as JFK mustered a win in Pennsylvania, but lost both Florida and Ohio to future president Richard Nixon. The three states currently hold the key to a total of 68 electoral votes, 47 of which decided the last two elections (Florida-27 and Ohio-20). Where does Obama go, then, if he is not victorious in at least one or two of these contests? After taking into consideration the 2004 electoral map and allowing both Obama and McCain to retain the most reliable states, let us examine the electoral votes of the states that Obama could possibly overturn:
These six states all voted Republican in the 2004 election, but may be in play come November. They constitute, however, only 50 total electoral votes. Even if Obama wins the entire group, McCain victories in Ohio and Florida would nearly nullify these gains. In the end, John McCain may be able to hold onto Missouri and Virginia at worst, the entire set at best. In addition, adding Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to the GOP ticket could force Obama not to take the Upper Midwest for granted.
Of course, it’s still early. I am not ready to make electoral predictions or guarantee McCain victories in any of the “Big Three.” Yet, it is evident that Barack Obama, the chosen one himself, must worry about his chances in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Hillary Clinton has managed to win the two northern primaries and would assuredly capture the Sunshine State if a new election was held. Obama’s troubles with the working class, Catholics, and seniors are worsening and should only push the superdelegates into deeper thought.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Even if Obama hadn’t told Florida that her votes don’t deserve to count, he would still have huge problems carrying the state. Out of the three groups mentioned (working class, Catholics, and seniors) the 2 latter groups are two very powerful groups in Florida. Of course the senior vote is well known, but there are also a ton of Catholics in Florida (including Cubans). The other group (working class) doesn’t really exist down here. Florida doesn’t have a huge working class.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I wonder about Texas. Some of the polls were extremely close between Obama and McCain, and not at all between Hillary and McCain. There’s nothing conclusive there yet, but with Obama’s appeal to Westerners with a libertarian streak might turn Texas into his goldmine. Hopefully we’ll see more polling from here soon.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I think the plug-in for Pawlenty was un necessary.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Sean,
I apologize for sounding bias. I think Pawlenty would be a fine VP choice, but I wanted only to point out his electoral appeal and its possible influences on the electoral map.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:29 am
No need to apologize Michael. Those are your opinions and you should be proud of them.
Some people just don’t like Pawlenty even though he is the obvious VP choice. Maybe it’s because he is a strong social conservative.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Although, unlikely, it is possible for Mr. Obama to win without any of these three. Mrs. Clinton could certainly win two out of the three and yet could lose the election. At least that is how the electoral map looks at this moment..
April 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Don’t dismiss Obama’s chances of winning NC in the fall. The voter demographics have continued to shift blue here since 2004, and the Obama campaign has serious groundwork laid for the fall. They’ve been turning up huge crowds at their events, too – over 18,000 last night at Chapel Hill’s Dean Dome, for example. And as far as early polling goes, Obama and McCain have polled even in NC. So there are another 15 potential electoral votes for Obama, which would *not* be available to Clinton.
Moreover, it’s early to suggest that he can’t win in PA or OH – those states will be swing states regardless of the nominee. FL will go Republican if Obama is the nominee, and might go red on a Clinton candidacy, too. The Democrats would be foolish to stake any kind of electoral strategy on FL. Ever. Their best bet, in general, is to try to play for a map that *doesn’t* require them to win the traditional swing states, especially FL and OH. We’ve seen how well that strategy has played out for them in the past. Why not act like it’s a new century, instead of trying to win the 1900 way?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
thisniss, you just don’t have THAT many states change from election to election. Every once in awhile you have a surprise, like West Virginia in 2000, but generally the map stays basically the same. The biggest change, believe it or not, was between 1980 and 1984. That seems strange since we think of both of them as Reagan landslides, but in 1980, Reagan only barely won most Southern states. He would win Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, states like that by 1 or 2 points each. Then he won in a blowout in most of the West. In 1984, Mondale got clobbered in Southern states but did a little better than Carter in the West. Reagan also won California in 1984 by slightly less than his national margin, a sign of things to come. Then by 1988, the Bush-Dukakis map looked much different than the Carter-Ford map. This time around, a few states may change here and there, but Nebraska is not going to all of a sudden become Democratic. Hillary’s argument is more sound. If Obama loses those three states he’s done because he’d have to run the table on the states Michael mentioned. Even though he won Missouri in the primary, it is a horrible state for him. Missouri is a Democratic state by socially conservative. Obama appeals to liberal Democrats and some upper-class Independents and Republicans who are drawn to his idea of change. Hillary would be much stronger in Missouri. She won just about every county this time but lost the state because of St. Louis.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Clearly the electoral map will be more fluid this year than in ‘04, especially if Obama is the nominee. Michael is right. Closing a 30 point gap in Nebraska to 15 does the Dems no good, especially if the trade off is bringing PA (and I would add MI) into play, and taking Florida off the table.
Where I disagee with Michael is in Missouri. I don’t know what current polls show in McCain/Obama matchups, but it doesn’t fit the profile of an Obama takeover state. To my mind, Obama will be less competitive there than was Kerrey or Gore. Not enough African Americans or latte liberals.
Also, I think the Mountain West will drift away from Obama as they learn more about his ultra-leftism. A lot of those westerners are middle class whites who fled California to escape Big Brother. The Hollywood types who own ranches in Montana aren’t typical.
Factor in a Pawlenty nomination brings MN, WI, and maybe even MI into play, and I think we could be headed for a 40 state route, especially if Rev. Wright keeps finding working mics.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Anyone who thinks Obama can carry Virginia is putting hopes before hard thinking, and that includes much of the mainstream media commentators who have fallen in love with Obama. The voters who determine the outcome of a Democratic primary are not, as many Democratic candidates for office learn on Election Day, the cohort who determine who wins an election. In the recent primary Obama “won” with 623,000 votes. In the 2004 presidential election there were 3.2 million Virginians who voted. You have to assume that the 2.6 million voters who didn’t vote for Obama in this year’s primary are somehow going to change their minds and vote for him in November to think that Virginia is in play.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Though the media is talking about “Reagan Democrats” as potential swing voters this year, it wasn’t too long ago that they were talking about Latin voters the same way (and may again as the Puerto Rico primary approaches, though PR won’t matter in the general). McCain is definitely the one Republican candidate who might see widescale support from Latin voters who would have voted for Clinton but not for Obama. Latin voters might throw a wrench into the Democrats Western state strategy with Obama at the top of the ticket and might even make California more competitive for McCain.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Welcome aboard, Michael, from a fellow former Rudy guy!
April 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Clarence,
Actually large numbers of states do change color from one election to the next when you don’t include re-election years. In fact, on average, 23 states switch parties from one election to the next. I did a blog on this back in January ‘07 when I first joined the site – it can be found here.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
DaveG had a great comment in that previous post of mine that I linked to, that fits very well with this post:
“This is why those implicitly arguing that all we should do is worry about Ohio, Missouri, and Florida in 2008, i.e., those who are saying to forget about the industrial midwest, the northeast, and the west coast, are basically asking to lose. With an average of 23 states expected to change hands from the 2004 map, playing for 2 or 3 close states from last time is a very poor strategy. Different candidates will appeal to different regions of the country… Lots of states are going to change hands.”
April 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I feel that no one has effectively demonstrated that in the primaries a vote for HRC is a vote against Obama.
Does Obama have a “problem” with seniors or does Hillary do better? My racist grandfather (rest in peace) would have voted for HRC before a “black” (a term he would use on a good day), but when it came to the general he was a Dem all the way. I think that he voted straight party Dem since 1932. I didn’t know him in 1960, but I am sure that he was voting against the “papist” in the primary and voting Dem in the general.
I think that the great unanswered question is how many Dem primary voters will switch sides in the general. My guess… less than people think. Remember these are PRIMARY voters… a general election electorate looks very different. (Hence my agreement with #10 – PLC… I am skeptical about VA, NC, etc. going Blue)
April 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hey – I thought I was the only “Adam” around here…
April 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
MattC, usually when they switch color, they all switch the same way. In 1992 for example, many states that had voted for Bush in 1988 went for Clinton in 1992. No states went for Dukakis in 1988 and Bush in 1992. Just like no states went for Dole in 1996 and Gore in 2000. Most states, though they may change color, finish in the same order.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
WiseGuy #5, this social liberal doesn’t object to socially conservative Pawlenty as a VP choice.
Do you realize that certain SoCons don’t offend the middle, while others do? It’s less a question of policy than rhetoric.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Ron Paul is not a former candidate, as evinced by his strong showing in Pennsylvania and his significant delegate grab in Nevada.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
#19 He is also an idiot.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“fares best” not “fairs best.”
unless you’re covering the largest watermelon contest at the county fair.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Will – all the Texas polls showing a close race between McCain and Obama appear to have been taken in February, at the height of the media’s whitewashing (no pun intended) of Obama’s candidacy. I highly doubt that a Texas poll taken this week would show a close race.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Thisniss – given that the NC GOP is using Obama as a way to attack its Dem gubernatorial opponents, I have a hard time seeing him winning there. The governor of NC – who just endorsed Hillary for the Dem nomination – appears to be thinking the same way. He won’t lose NC by as much as Kerry and Gore did, but he won’t get more than 45-48% of the general-election vote.