Electoral College

Whether it is as largely expected on Tuesday with the Messiah descending upon 1600 or if McCain pulls out a miracle, the electoral map is likely to change in subtle but significant ways that set up 2012 and 2016 and dictate our opportunity states in the years to come.

This is a post about relative change, not absolutes. Obama is likely to do better than John Kerry in every single state, even Kentucky and West Virginia that shellacked him so in the primaries. This is simply the national atmospherics and the political environment. "The map" does not dictate his ability to win or lose. It only dictates what order he wins those states in. We sometimes focus on "the map" to the detriment of everything else. But in reality, any topline outcome is possible given the right environment. And if you doubt it, just remember that a guy with the middle name of Hussein could pick off one or two Deep South states on his way to the White House.

What "the map" does dictate is the shape of our coalition and what states we target moving forward. The 2004 result gave Democrats reason to hope about Virginia and Colorado, hopes that will possibly by realized on Tuesday. Win or lose, Tuesday will be an opportunity to gauge which states are moving in and out of our orbit. And thanks to the plethora of state polling, we have a better idea in advance of which states are becoming more or less Republican relative to the rest of the country.

Here is the map, with bluer being the stronger pro-Obama swing:

America faces many deficits. Some can be measured easily by metrics: i.e a  budget deficit or a trade deficit. 

But there's a far more debilitating deficit in our nation today. The confidence deficit

Without confidence business transactions grind to a halt and political progress is stalled as rational actors play the old zero-sum game.

This week the McCain campaign had an opportunity to address this confidence deficit.  The opportunity passed. And indeed, now they demonstrate their own confidence deficit.

First, let's look at the root causes of the confidence deficit. I trace them to Bush's annus horrible in 2005 when social security reform died, Katrina was an unmitigated disaster and Bush alienated his core supporters with the Miers nomination. Add Iraq to this brew and we get the 2006 midterm thumping. At rhe end of the day, the public lost faith in Bush and it seems Bush lost faith in what had worked in the first term for him.

The Democrats who took power in Congress then exacerbated this problem. Their "vision" was of accepting defeat in Iraq and running the same ethically challenged Congress they decried---only with an even greater level of incompetence.  The lowest approval ratings in recent history were to be expected.

Hence the opening for a "Hope and Change" presidential candidate. By mid-summer it was self evident that Obama's spiel was inspirational to the young and partisan, but was falling on deaf ears to the older and more jaded.

McCain's campaign mocked the "messiah' and then made a bold move that regained the political advantage. They picked Sarah Palin for V.P.

Early in this campaign we were treated to the Obama camp promising to "expand the field" and campaign hard to win traditionally Red States.www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/1/144541/9616 

Even Michael Barone said to "throw out the map" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/throw_out_the_maps_in_2008.html  thinking we would have an "open field election" (I questioned this at the time, BTW)

The sports analogy would be akin to a spread shotgun formation, where a football team tries to use the whole field to set up one-on-one matchups and provide the running game lateral room for big plays, while enabling receivers to get quickly upfield for deep passes. 

Speed, elusiveness, and finesse are essential to executing this offensive philosophy. It's hard for a inexperienced quarterback to succeed in this gameplan, because such a triggerman will tend to get sacked, throw picks, or put the ball on the ground a lot., instead of knowing when to just heave the ball in the stands.    

Obama had the chance to go this route by choosing Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, or Kathleen Sebelius. He didn't.

Instead by picking a running mate from a very "Blue" state it is apparent that Team Obama will be narrowing the field and trying the old "smashmouth"  football approach of trying to grind out a messy victory in the mud.

In the power running formation, one tries to overload the point of attack with blockers and outmuscle the defenders on a narrow slice of field.  The odds for disaster are lower (fewer interceptions, sacks or fumbles) but it is hard to score often or win big over a credible opponent in this fashion. (One problem the Obama camp has with this plan is their candidate lacks any bonafides on old time Democrat bread-and-butter economic issues) 

The best electoral argument for Biden is he may help a bit in PA. But there were better picks to do that,even. Surely Ed Rendell or Bob Casey,Jr. have more vote pulling appeal in PA.http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/PA/   But Rendell and Casey lacked foreign policy experience. Evidently trying to fill this hole was more important than going to a better electoral choice. Having been seen a lot on Philly TV and growing up a half century ago in Scranton is thin gruel to help Obama in a state he got hammered in during the primaries, and will almost certainly cost him the presidency were he to lose it in the general election.. 

Biden offers no help in any 2004 red state that I can identify. Hell, even Dick Gephardt might''ve helped in MO if Obama wanted to appeal to tired old DC career politicians.  

No, Biden was an effort to firm up the Democrat base and grind out a win along the traditional Democrat/Republican scrimmage line.  Which is what we now have at summer's end http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Instead of the "we can lose Ohio and still win" meme, the Obama camp has pulled its ads in seven red states it was working hard in all summer. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/50084.html

Florida and Virginia are surprising, although Obama has been unopposed on the TV  in FL, dropped over $5M , yet  failed to overtake McCain. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850408634131921.html  I presume he'll be back in those places, but I suspect they have thrown in the towel in the other five.  Perhaps the reason Obama made such a boring VP choice is they have made the strategic decision that they simply can't execute the "big play" in red states, having lost ground in many despite massive effort. 

No, there has not been a huge surge of Obama Republicans, or evangelicals for Obama. There are just a lot of mostly young and well educated Democrats for Obama. The strategy he is left with is to take the 2004 John Kerry voting pattern and put it on steroids.   This will amount to trying to squeeze another 120,000 net votes out of Cuyahoga and Franklin counties,http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/   or gin up turnout in Denver and Boulder http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/co/prescounties/    and hope another state like NM or NV  flips.

This will be exacerbated as certainly some voters in VA and IN will be disappointed that Biden was picked over well liked local officeholders. Obama had recently lost some ground in both states  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_mccain_vs_obama-604.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html and I suspect Obama will find IN drifting out of reach soon.

Especially if Team Mac puts a few hundred GRP behind this ad in the Richmond and Indianapolis ADI's http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/08/23/joe-biden-on-barack-obama/

The Biden pick will relieve McCain of worries that his base electoral votes will be at risk. The freedom of decision now rest with his team, who can now decide whether it is their turn to open up the field with an unconventional choice, or look for a conventional pick who can enhance our vote totals in the traditional battleground states and media markets     

I have no gripes with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty taking it to Obama-Biden on the traditional line of scrimmage, but boy am I feelin former champion women's jock Sarah Palin about now.

As I see it there are two different victory scenarios for McCain that I find plausible. 

But first we should reconize the swing states that he absolutely must win in November.

The North-East:

No must-wins here!

South:

Florida--27 electoral votes, obviously of immense importance.  Fortunately, McCain appears to be leading here already.

North Carolina--15 electoral votes I thought this state was solid GOP but current polls show Obama within striking distance.

Virginia--13 Electoral votes, possible the most vulnerable Southern must-win state.

Misssouri--11 electoral votes, usually votes for the winner but has been leaning Republican recently.

Mississippi--6 electoral votes. Obama can win it if he drives the black vote through the roof but its unlikely to happen for reasons stated earlier.

Right now, McCain has a comfortable lead in the remaining Southern States. 

Midwest:

Indiana--11 Electoral votes, again, supposed to be solid GOP but polls are tied.

Ohio--20 Electoral votes, the most vulnerable must win state considering that Bush won it by 2.1% in 2004.

Great plains:

McCain has confortable leads here, except possibly Nebraska's first Congressional district.

West:

McCain is virtually assured to win traditional GOP strongholds like Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona.

The first scenario is what I call the "Bush scenario". This envisions McCain playing defense and trying to win all 29 states that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004, limiting resources in other states.  That would give McCain 274 electoral votes, four more than necessary, so it is technically possible that he could lose a small state like Montana and a congressional district in Nebraska as well and still win 270-168.

A drawback to this stategy, of course, is that Obama has made strong showings in Western swing states like Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico and exerts a special appeal due in large part to his untraditional "new politics" that is attracting libertarian whites who would have been turned off by Clinton. 

A bold alternative strategy could be to concentrate resources by trying to flip a midwestern/eastern state while writing off most of the west.  For example, assume that Howard Dean's wildest dreams come true and Obama not only carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada but also Alaska, Montana, and a Nebraskan district.  But assume he loses the above states plus Michigan.

He still loses 168-270.

It may sound foolish to "write off" the west, but McCain may have to prioritize his resources if he is going to be massively outspent as many are suggesting. 

(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

Promoted. -Patrick

Now that Obama has almost certainly tied up the Democratic nomination, analysts and number-crunchers have already begun taking a look at what the map would look like if the election were held today.   Two prominent sources for political data and analysis - RealClearPolitics and the Evans-Novak Political Report - have maps indicating what the landscape looks like.  While the RCP model is mathematical and computer-generated (it takes the statewide head-to-head polls, plugs them into a map and paints by numbers), the Evans-Novak map analyzes trends and demographics in states to make predictions.

RCP's current electoral map, as of this afternoon, has Barack Obama with 228 electoral votes, John McCain with 190, and another 120 listed as "toss-up".   What should give McCain supporters something happy to read from this is the "solid" versus "leaning" breakdown.  Of Obama's 228 electors, RCP only lists 60 as "solid" with 168 as "leaning".  McCain, however, has 96 "solid" to 94 "leaning".