Patrick Ottenhoff's blog

[Cross-posted at The Electoral Map]

In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch this afternoon, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) blamed the recent struggles of the GOP squarely on "southerners."  When asked about the "GOP's biggest problem," he replied:

"We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr.' People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’"

A more accurate description probably wouldn't have been that the GOP has too many southerners, but that it doesn't have enough non-Southerners.  As Ron Brownstein noted in the National Journal in May:

The Republican Party today is more electorally dependent on the South than at any point in its past. Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history except the apex of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's popularity during the early days of the New Deal.

It may be a vicious cycle where the loss of moderate northern Republicans opens the doors for the rise of the Tom DeLay's of the party, who in turn pave the way for the defeat of more moderate northerners.  The same cycle played out in the 1980's and '90s when the loss of Dixiecrats enabled liberals to take power of the Democratic Party, and thus prompted the death of more southern Democrats.

Even Voinovich's Ohio, once the bedrock of the Republican Party, has shifted to the Democratic Party in recent years despite having little gain in minority and/or suburban voters that have turned other regions (mid-Atlantic, Mountain West) blue.

Voinovich is retiring in January 2010 and probably doesn't care about popularity points in his caucus, so he's not going to win any friends south of the Ohio River for that comment.  But he is correct that his party increasingly speak with a southern accent:

[Chart credit: National Journal]

Cross-posted at The Electoral Map

An ongoing battle between the Nevada GOP brass and a fierce faction of Ron Paul loyalists could have major consequences in November: If the rift isn’t healed, the Paul supporters look like they’re poised to cast their ballots for a Paul as a write-in, or support Libertarian candidate Bob Barr or even throw their vote to Barack Obama out of spite for McCain.

The sour relations began at the state GOP convention when Paul supporters assembled a clear majority in the run-up to the vote to send delegates to the convention. Paul had finished in second place in the caucus, ahead of McCain, and their people thought that they should be well-represented in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

But the heads of the Nevada Republican Party, who are McCain allies, used parliamentary tactics to stall a vote and consequently ran out the clock. They decided that a state GOP committee, and not county delegates, would decide who went to the convention. The Paul people filed suit and lost, and vow to take their grievances to the Republican National Committee.

Even if they win, which appears unlikely, the damage has been done. According to this TIME article, it appears that the Paul supporters would rather vote for a ham sandwich than McCain. It’s not clear how large their faction is, but if it’s large enough to shave two or three points off of McCain’s tally in the state, it means that Obama could win Nevada’s five electoral votes with a plurality.

Bill Clinton won Nevada in 1992 with only 37 percent thanks to independent Ross Perot picking off 26 percent.

Paul and Perot share many similarities. Besides the fact that they’re both fiery Texans with bold views, they both espouse a distrust for the federal government and both command a loyal following. They also seem to win support in similar geographical areas.

If you look at the maps below of Ron Paul donations and Ross Perot performance during the 1992 campaign, Paul and Perot had their best success in Western state and in Nevada in particular.

Nevada is a tough state to analyze because so many of its voters are new transplants. But as the state grows and changes, one thing remains constant: It has a robust libertarian streak. Nevada’s DNA is rooted in libertarianism, from the anti-government and pro-gun lifestyle of the range to the prostitution, gambling and hedonism of Las Vegas.

This is prime Paul territory, and those Paul supporter will vote. The question, For who?

Ron Paul Donation in 2008 Q4

Ross Perot Performance in 1992

Cross-posted at The Electoral Map and promoted by Soren

Politico's Charlie Mahtesian and Amie Parnes wrote an article yesterday about the "Five Places Obama Should Go," and four out of the five areas they identified were places where he struggled against Clinton: Broward County, FL (Jews), Youngstown, OH (blue-collar, gun-owning Catholics), San Antonio (Latinos) and Mingo Couny, WV (“the heart of the anti-Obama belt").  The fifth suggestion -- Maricopa County, AZ -- was clearly aimed at McCain.

If four out of the five places Obama has to go are aimed at shoring up his base, it means he still has plenty of loose ends to tie up from the primary before he starts trying to win over independents and Republicans. 

With that in mind, where are the five places that McCain should go?

This is a tough one, since most of his weaknesses seem to be more personal (age, speaking skills, Bush) rather than geographic. Still, I think visiting areas where Obama is vulnerable and putting him on the defensive would be a smart move — So, how about:

1. Ohio River Valley Tour -- From Pittsburgh to St. Louis -- When it comes to the Ohio River Valley, the bad news for the GOP is that the party's brand is in poor shape in this border region and has been resulting in substantial loses on the congressional level (think PA-04, OH-18, KY-03, IN-08 and IN-09, and the near-miss in OH-02).  The good news for the GOP is that Obama is very unpopular here and was pummeled by Hillary in the primaries.  In one trip, McCain could hit competitive areas in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri, while also challenging the myth that Kentucky could become competitve and even making a symbolic swing through the Land of Lincoln.
2. Fairfield County, Conn. -- A campaign stop with New York-area Jews and Joe Lieberman would inevitably shine a light on Obama's comments about Iran and would fan media speculation that the state could become competitive.  And Henry Kissinger lives in Kent, an hour up the beautiful Housatonic Valley from Fairfield County -- perhaps he could lend an opinion on Obama's foreign policy?
3. Northern Suburbs of Milwaukee, Wis. -- The suburbs will be key nationwide and Wisconsin is a vital target state for the GOP. The north and west 'burbs of Milwaukee also “remain overwhelmingly Republican,” notes Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. But “If Obama can crack them to any degree he probably wins the state by several points.” Besides shoring up support with voters, a McCain appearance in the “Beer Capital of the World” would also remind the media that he’s the beer track candidate and Obama is the wine track one. It would also be smart to campaign with fellow Teddy Roosevelt Republican Tommy Thompson.
4. Grand Rapids — Michigan might be Obama’s most blue vulnerable state and Gerald Ford’s hometown is at the ideological intersection of what Patrick Ruffini once called "the real dividing lines of" the GOP primary -- wealthy suburbanites, religious conservatives and Ford-like mainline moderates. A smart sidekick would be Mitt Romney, who beat McCain in Grand Rapids by a 38-31% margin.
5. Iowa, Early and Often — Iowa might be McCain’s most vulnerable state; he clearly has never built much of an operation here. He needs to visit Iowa… repeatedly.

Thoughts?

(promoted by Soren)

If Barack Obama wins any of the states in the former Confederacy, it’ll probably be Virginia or North Carolina. But a few analysts have suggested that he could boost African-African turnout across the rest of the south — the Deep South, mind you — to the point where he makes some really red states competitive. Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder, who were both my editors at The Hotline and who are two of brightest political minds I know, have hinted that Obama could make Georgia and Mississippi interesting.

Chuck wrote in March that “Mississippi's one of those rare Southern states that might be in play in the general election if Obama becomes the nominee. One Dem statistician tells First Read that there are three red states that could swing if African-American turnout was ever maximized (both in registration and in actual turnout): Georgia, Louisiana and, yes, Mississippi. So don’t assume this is just one of those untouchable red states.”

Marc took it a step further in May and broke down the actual numbers, asking, “Did you know that a half a million African Americans in Georgia are eligible to vote but haven’t registered? The Obama campaign knows this. And they plan to register these voters by November, campaign folks say.”  And the Southern Political Report noted on Tuesday that the DCCC and DSCC have already registered 70,000 new voters in some Louisiana parishes.

Stateline also took a look at it on Tuesday and noted that “Some Democrats hold out hope that Obama could actually win one of the six Southern states that he won so convincingly during the primary season — Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina — all of which have voted strongly Republican in recent presidential elections.” But the key phrase from that observation might have been that Dems are “holding out hope,” because after all, it’ll be a long shot.

Tom Schaller, another superb political analyst, actually crunched the numbers (something that no one else has done), and found that Obama is facing steep odds. In a conversation about white voters posted on Salon, Schaller presented his data: 

“I did a correlation between the black share of statewide population in the 11 Confederate states and the share of Bush’s support among white voters, and it correlates at .76 with all 11 confederate states and if you take Texas out, which Bush obviously did well in, though it has a relatively low black population, with a data set of just 10 data points, it correlates at .9. Human height and weight doesn’t correlate at .9. With 10 data points, it’s ridiculous. I don’t even think this is an empirical matter of dispute.”

 Schaller has a point and his numbers are tough to argue with.  But if Obama’s campaign is really about redrawing the electoral map and scrapping the old Clinton-Bush model, then he should leave no stone unturned and leave no county uncontested.

Cross-posted at TheElectoralMap.com