2008 Re: The New Math Doesn’t Add Up
posted by on March 7 at 8:56 AM
Annie is right to dismiss the Clinton camp’s boasts about California, New Jersey, and New York. Obama would win those reliably Blue sates against John McCain too. It’s more compelling when Clinton highlights her energetic win in Ohio (a contested swing state that’s worth an impressive 20 Electoral College votes come November).
Ohio, as Clinton said in her Tuesday night victory speech in Columbus, is a must win for any presidential candidate. And certainly, it’s up for grabs for either a Democrat or a Republican. For example, Republican George W. Bush won it in ‘04 and ‘00. Democrat Bill Clinton won it in ‘96 and ‘92. And Republican George H.W. Bush won it in ‘88. Now, Hillary Clinton has a tremendous and mobilized coalition in Ohio that could carry this rust belt swing state for the Democrats on November 4.
But Annie’s argument that Obama can make similar claims about states he won like Minnesota, Virginia, and Colorado is not as compelling as Clinton’s winning Ohio rap.
Minnesota
Minnesota, which is only worth 10 Electoral College votes—half as many as Ohio— has gone for the Democratic presidential candidate in every presidential contest over the last 20 years: ‘88 (Mike Dukakis!), ‘92, ‘96, ‘00, and ‘04. Like New York, NJ, and CA, Minnesota is already a reliable Blue state in presidential elections. Arguing that Obama will hold serve is a yawner.
To be fair: The newly sprawling Twin Cities suburbs have added some GOP momentum; Minnesota’s U.S. Senate delegation is split; and it does have a Republican governor. However, 2008 does not seem like the year the GOP is going to flip a historically deep Blue, anti-war state like Minnesota (the only state that didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan in ‘84.)
And Obama’s claim on Minnesota isn’t all that. His win in Minnesota was a caucus win. As we saw this week in Texas, caucus wins don’t necessarily reflect the popular sentiment. It’s noteworthy that Nevada, the one caucus that was made accessible to working class voters, was the one caucus where Clinton beat Obama.
Virginia
I agree that Virginia, which seems Red (check me on this, but a Democratic presidential candidate hasn’t carried it since LBJ), is actually Obama’s best asset. Virginia’s northern suburbs (outside of D.C.) are an expanding Blue bloc that could give VA to the Democrats. Virginia elected a Democratic governor in 2005, and Northern Virginia was enough of a force to elect a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Jim Webb, over the incumbent Republican, Sen. George Allen, in 2006. (Although, Allen’s idiotic “macaca” whopper really really helped Webb, as did Webb’s military background. Obama’s a law school professor.)
Virginia is a riskier bet than Ohio and not as valuable. It’s only worth 13 Electoral College votes. And again, Virginia went for Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, and Bush.
Colorado
Colorado has voted Republican in every presidential election in the last 20 years (with the exception of 1992 when it went for Bill Clinton) and Republicans currently have a 100,000 registration advantage. However, there’s evidence that Colorado is shifting politically. They elected a Democratic governor in 2006 and a Democratic U.S. Senator in 2004. The Senator, Sen. Ken Salazar, is one of three Hispanics in the U.S. Senate, which is fitting, given that part of Colorado’s drift to the left is explained by the growing Latino population.
However, like Minnesota, Obama’s win in Colorado was (asterisk) a caucus win—not a primary win. Moreover, given the Latino demographic, it seems to me that Clinton—more popular with Latino voters than Obama—might be better a candidate here.
Also, Colorado is only good for 9 Electoral College votes. It’s not a major prize.
In addition to hyping Minnesota, Virginia, and Colorado, Annie also put a challenge to Clinton fans: How would Clinton wrest New Mexico and Florida from the Republicans and hold on to Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania
I’m not convinced Pennsylvania is in danger of going Republican this year. The Keystone State has gone Blue in the last four presidential elections: ‘04, ‘00, ‘96, and ‘92. And the governor, elected to a second term in 2006, is a Democrat.
Pennsylvania’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Bob Casey, as opposed to Webb in Virginia, destroyed Republican incumbent Rick Santorum in ‘06, 59 to 41.
Still, given Pennsylvania’s moderate bent (and Casey’s conservative bent, he’s pro-life), PA is considered a swing state. But as this Washington Post article explains, Pennsylvania is, like Ohio, rich Clinton turf. The New York Times agrees.
New Mexico
New Mexico, where Clinton beat Obama on Super Tuesday, is the definition of a battleground state (party registration is deadlocked). I think Clinton is best positioned to beat the GOP here in November because New Mexico has the highest Latino population of any state— at 44%.
After the Democrats won New Mexico in 1992, 1996, and 2000, Bush stopped their streak and won it by 6000 votes in 2004. Bush famously won over Latino voters nationally, upping the GOP take to an astonishing 40 percent (up from 21 percent in 1996.)
As lots of pundits are pointing out, the Democrats should win back the Latino vote in 2008. The GOP jeopardized Bush’s gains with its wild anti-immigration rhetoric. Clinton, who has proven to be popular with Latino voters, is the candidate who can capitalize on this and bring NM back into the Democratic column. Obama has not been as successful with Latinos. John McCain split with his party on the issue, so he could actually hold New Mexico if he faced Obama rather than Clinton.
Florida
With 27 Electoral College votes, Florida is definitely a prize. And the Democrats have only won the presidential contest in Florida once (‘96) in the last 20 years. However, as recently as 2005, Florida had two Democratic Senators. One of them, the popular Bob Graham, was hawkish on national security … like Clinton.
With its senior citizen demographic (the state with the largest population of voters over 65 according to the New York Times) and a large Hispanic bloc, it seems to me that Clinton, who has dominated both categories, has a better chance in Florida than Obama. If the Democrats decide to schedule a “do-over” in Florida, we’ll find out if I’m right.
In summary: Add Ohio (where Clinton beat Obama decisively—54 to 44), + Pennsylvania (which looks a lot like Ohio), +Florida (where Clinton kinda won already and has an advantage with the demographics) +New Mexico (where Clinton can energize Latino voters like she did in California and Texas) and you’ve got 73 Electoral College votes.
Obama’s “big” swing state takes—Colorado, Virginia, and Minnesota—are worth 32 Electoral College votes. Sure, it’s silly for Clinton to sell New York, New Jersey, and California as potential Democratic pick ups if she gets the nomination (although I think it’s legit for her to hype her success with Latinos in California), but Colorado, Virginia, and Minnesota? Really?
I know it's been a while since the Ohio vote, but do you remember how Rush mobilized Republicans to vote for Clinton to keep the Democratic nomination going?
Do you really believe they'll do the same in November...?
And it seems that Clinton's Ohio victory might just have been based on some NAFTA jiggery-pokery that won't work a second time.
Josh, we've already dismissed the use of primary results as a base for chances in a state. teh high democratic voter turnout is a leading indicator about how unrealistic an analysis of those results is.
Why did the Stranger endorse Obama again?
Wisconsin went narrowly blue last go around, and I feel Obama would be the better candidate there. My rural, working class family there hate Hillary Clinton almost as much as they hate the Iraq War.
And a win in ohio is wiped out by a loss in MN and WI (which have been close). you can't bank on one or two states to win the election because you will be painting yourself into a corner playing to those 2 states.
If Clinton does her bullshit negative campainging she is going to drag the whole party down. Win at any cost is her mantra now. Just yesterday she said that her and McCain were qualified to be Commander and Chief and Obama is not. She is actually praising McCain over Obama. WTF?!!! It seems that she is content to hand it over to the GOP if she can't win it herself. I had respect for Clinton until this fear-mongering, negative campainging started a couple weeks back. Now I can't stand to see or listen to her. Her blind ambition is nauseating
In Ohio, no one can hear you scream.
and every indication is that winning ohio doesnt matter that much if you lose other states. Gore and Kerry could have won if they had a wider draw to other states.
I'm not sure what the practical point of this discussion is. If Obama ends up with more pledged delegates and more popular votes, is the Democratic Party really going to steal the nomination from him on the basis of some precious electoral math that anyone can spin any way they want?
One of the slimier Clinton surrogates, Lanny Davis, was on CNN last night stating that Clinton has done just as well as Obama in every poll pitting the two against McCain. The guy was happy to put out a readily verifiable lie, figuring nobody would call him on it. If I recall correctly, Anderson Cooper eventually called him on some other piece of factual creativity.
From the advertisements that line Slog, it looks like the Stranger is endorsing John McCain for President......
Hillary just got Samantha Power fired this morning. And another name is added to her Enemies List. Unforgiving, vindictive, and living every second in utter terror of looking weak: That's my Hils!
The Stranger also seems to think I really need to go to classmates.com. What, with three ads in a row? Pass.
I am sick and tired of hearing that lame old asterix argument about the caucus system. People are filling up these caucuses in record numbers to support Obama. To me, these "activists" are more important than regular voters because they are folks who are going to be spending the next few months discussing politics with their friends and coworkers. They are more likely to help make phone calls and go door to door on behalf of Obama.
Many of these "regular voters", are just voting by name recognition because they are tools. 6 or 7 more months of Obama in the news will sway these name recognition zombies just fine.
@11, THANK YOU!!! I noticed that too. Dan Savage will be stumping for John McCain!!
That and they are pushing McDonald's
Could people please stop playing with the electoral vote calculator?
Everything you say makes perfect sense, Josh, if both Clinton and Obama go home and sit inside watching TV for the next six months instead of campaigning.
You're still using the Democratic primary results to assign voters to McCain, which is stupid.
Either candidate can win all of the states you mention with a little effort. Hispanics are not going to rush to embrace the Republicans after the hate bubbling up out of the party the last couple of years. Catholics are not going to follow McCain off a cliff after Hagee.
Now, if Hillary continues to stump for McCain, you might have a point.
and you remember how gore and kerry both won the primaries in ohio? and florida? and several other states? get a grip, primary wins are not a leading indicator of electoral success.
No, no, this shit would totally work, but you also have to use Republican primary votes to assign states to Hillary or Obama. How hard could that be? So Josh, do you think the Huckabee or Romney voters will all go over to Hils or O? Splain it to me.
McCain lost Kansas, so does that mean either Democrat will have it in the bag?
I think most of this makes sense. However, what about the point that, say Obama wins the nomination, why couldn't Clinton HELP Obama, stumping for him in Ohio and Pennsylvania, to help ensure the state swings blue come November.
Of course, this seems highly unlikely since she apparently things McCain is a better candidate than Obama (which is the STUPIDEST political move oher her part ever... I mean, Clinton and Obama are virtually indistinguishable on many issues).
But as Fnarf points out above, this math is totally likely, only as long Clinton continues embracing the Republican nominee.
These sorts of comparisons are totally useless for many reasons. As has been mentioned, Democratic turnout has consistently been significantly higher than Republican turnout, even before McCain built an insurmountable lead, and dismissing the caucus states is a shaky proposition at best. And the characterization of Nevada as "the one caucus that was made accessible to working class voters" is just bullshit, considering, you know, that Clinton sued to stop the casino caucus sites.
But the more important reason is that there's no reliable way to know what percentage of Clinton primary voters would support Obama in the general, and vice versa. Anecdotally, at least, there's a lot of evidence that a significant number of Obama voters are not Clinton fans. Whether that means they'd vote McCain, stay home, or bite the bullet and vote for Hillary is an open question, but that's sort of the point.
I'm pretty sure Ohio went for the Republican candidate in '04 because the election there was rigged. Not that it will ever happen again or is anything to get exercised about.
How about wondering which candidate is, you know, good? I'm not going to support Obama just because there are millions of misogynists (many here on Slog) who would vote for McCain over Clinton.
If you're worried about electability, nominate McCain as the democratic nominee and guarantee a win.
If you look at the latest SurveyUSA data, which I'm doing only to point out how useless these early results are, you see Clinton taking FL, AR, PA, WV, and NJ, where Obama loses them. But you see Obama taking WA, OR, NV, CO, ND, IA, MI, VA, NH, and maybe even NEBRASKA, for chrissakes, where Clinton loses them. Net result? Obama takes more EC votes than Clinton.
Personally? I think either candidate is going to end up with 350+ electoral votes. We've got a long time ahead. You PA is almost as far away from now as we are now from Iowa.....
Clinton isn't going to campaign for Obama. If she doesn't win, she wants to run against McCain in 2012. C U Next Tuesday.
THIS is exactly why I always argued that we need to get rid of the Bowl Championship Series and institute a real playoff system.
Great writeup, but one look at http://hominidviews.com/ shows that when you look at all the state polls, Obama beats McCain, and Hillary doesn't.
Playoff system is right. This is very similar to the BCS this year especially in the Big XII.
232 years of patriarchy; the rub is you're voting for Hillary as reaction to 232 years of patriarchy, not because she is actually a good candidate just as some people arent voting for her because she is a woman. same coin differnet side.
232 years of patriarchy--what's a few more?
Barack to Hillary: "Meet Me in Denver"
Hominid Views is awesome.
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1363
washingtonians are perpetual whiners about government and taxes when they really have it good.
fnarf--you are living in a pure fantasy world if you honestly believe Obama could win North Dakota. You are now barred from making political commentary. Shoo!
If Barack doesn't win Ohio and Hillary does, this does NOT mean as the nominee of the Democrats, Obama would lose the state. This is the same in other states, especially considering the facts:
1) Hillary's consistently high negatives (even within her own party
2) The Republicans who are disgusted with their own party and are voting for Obama in many states, bringing once-solid-red states into play for Obama.
3) With the Republican Party saddled with a candidate the core doesn't like, with two disasterous wars, with a looming economic disaster--the Republicans are very weak, and can be beaten by either Hillary or Barack, so long as they run a strong campaign AND CAN APPEAL TO INDEPENDENTS--the people who decide elections--and Obama a consistenly polls higher than Clinton and he attracts those voters to polls, even in a primary.
Dean's 50-state strategy is creating record turnout in ALL states (red and blue alike) in comparison to Republican turnout, and this in PRIMARY season.
It's the Democrat's to lose, so choose the candidate with the wider appeal.
That said, hell, let it go to the Convention--that's how the system has been set up. However messy democracy might be, let the process happen and let's stop being so impatient. The primary race only sharpens either candidate.
Snail Mail @32: YOU should barred (or rather, prevented by embarrassment) from making comments due to your total lack of reading comprehension.
When fanatical Obama supporters come out to a caucus, that's people of interest getting a disportionate influence but that's good because they care and will talk to their friends between now and Nov. These caucus goers most likely did not represent the will of people but that's OK.
But if people that have been part of the party for years instead of days want cast their delegate vote different from the caucus or vote total that should not be allowed.
Hey Josh, nice analysis but you are statistically wrong. Obama is the better candidate as he gets more electoral votes than Clinton:
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-clinton-final.png
As if any of this matters. Until a major change in our system occurs voting for "the least worst" of two candidates will continue.
For this to be a truly democratic process you need:
A. Remove control over the nomination process from the parties (super delegates, Florida doesnt exist, primary here, caucus there... all BS)
B. Hold nationwide primaries all on the same day. Give all the candidate a fighting chance not just those that win big in the beginning.
C. Lower barriers for non-party candidates running. (Did you know that you can't legally get on the ballot in Alaska if you don't belong to a party)
D. Use a instant run off ballots to avoid recounts, and give people more choice. Let people rank their choices in order.
E. Require states to split their electoral votes proportionally according to how the electorate voted.
F. Eliminate the lock that the parties have on political contributions by removing restrictions on private donations to political candidates.
G. Require all donation activity to be publicly available information within 48 hours of the donation being received.
H. Make each and every election about the candidates running and their record, beliefs and promises. Restrict special interest groups from participating in or donating to elections.
Josh, how does it feel to be part of Hillary's spin machine? Are you dizzy?
Your convoluted numbers argument is meaningless considering how unreliable much simpler calculations have been in this race so far (New Hampshire, anyone?). The simple fact is that will be Obama is a much stronger competitor against McCain than Hillary would be, and here's why:
1. Republicans aren't energized about McCain.
As Howard Dean says, "[McCain] is a flawed candidate." He won by default because the right-of-center republican majority was split between Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee. Even George Bush's recent endorsement was grudging and flaccid.
2. Republican moderates will defect for Obama, but not for Hillary.
Republicans loathe the Clintons. Hillary's candidacy will energize republicans, and they will unite behind McCain. They do not loathe Obama.
3. The "3AM phone call" tactic will fail miserably against McCain. Contrast to Obama's "I didn't vote for this war in the first place" tactic, which will be very successful.
This argument is so dumb.
What does hillary being able to beat a democrat in Ohio say about here ability to beat a repbulican in Ohio?
Jack fucking shit, that's what.
@36's graphs for the win. There's good coverage, as always, on electoral-vote.com today.
Seeing Washington as a Red State makes me sick to my stomache.
Come on Josh, this is dumb. You're still using primary results to predict general results. Someone was trying to do it in the comments for a month or so and it has been thouroughly debunked (that person has been curiously missing from commenting on this round of posts, though, maybe they realized how stupid the argument is).
It's all about the Electoral College delegates.
On that score, Clinton will be having a lot harder time winning over McCain than Obama will.
With Obama, every state and every delegate is in play. With Clinton ... less so.
thanks for the counting Josh. I often think you miss things but not this time. In social work they say "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." This is not to say that change is impossible just that its difficult. Looking at past electoral college results is one of several very good indicators of likely future votes.
As I have said before, I think it all comes down to Ohio. I would like it if HRC did campaign for Obama, did stop using attack ads, and all the rest. However the combination of HRC's attacks and Obama supporter reprisals there seems to be a level of animosity building up here and around the country that I fear will lose us the election. If people here really want Obama to win you are going to have to stop taking HRC supporters for granted just the way you wouldn't want HRC supporters to take you for granted. Let me ask you, if you actually got off your asses and went out door to door to try to convince HRC supporters to vote Obama what would you say? Do you think attacking HRC would get them to vote obama? Would you argue in Bad Faith that you thought both candidates were really similar, both good on the issues that count and that HRC just happened to lose the nomination? Given the level of vitriol that goes on here I doubt you would be convincing. You might even encounter resentment. How are you going to be honest and authentic with potential voters if in the rest of your life you are vicious toward the candidate they might have been in favor of? But maybe I'm assuming too much activism on your part. Maybe you are the types who only talk on blogs but don't actually go out and organize. At least Obama tried when he was young, but it seems like you folks can't live up to his ideals. what a shame.
LMSW, the problem is that it doesnt all come down to ohio and thinking it does wont win the election. There are more states in play this time around and winnign the battle of ohio to lose the war of the election is bad.
also past results are never indicative of future ones if the variables measured in past results is not similar to the future.
HI BA,
There may be more states in play but I am erring on the side of caution. In my view if states are slow to change, and florida goes republican Ohio could still be the key. Obviously there has to be a concerted effort in all states but Ohio puts us over the top.
I think you don't want to say "never" in your second statement rather that such results would be random because of course they might appear to be indicative.
But thats being picky. It appears that you believe that the variables in the election are sufficiently dissimilar to make prediction very difficult. I disagree. I think voting patterns are predicable based on a number of variables.
Tell me what did you think about my other point -re the effects of the rising level of rhetoric on both dem camps?
the rhetoric is stupid and not helping anyone. but so goes the game.
i think some of the variables you can measure in primaries dont track to general elections. for instance hillary winning ohio by 10% means what exactly? that she is better able to win ohio against mccain?
but what data are we tracking here?
demographic voting trends? well the big problem is when you track them just for demographgic voting patterns there is no way to extrapolate that data into a comparison between a democrat adn republican.
and instance of this is the fact that hillary beats obama among the above 60 crowd. how does mccain do with this same crowd? well you can only really measure that against romney and huckabee, but that data wont reflect a head to head battle between hillary and mccain.
making a absolute comparison between 2 people based on relative comparisons between in other races and competitions is using skewed variables to the general elections.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).