I don't think early polling should be dispositive in anyone's thinking about anything, but can we put the notion that Hillary Clinton has some kind of decisive edge in swing states to rest with polls like this one out of Wisconsin? There are contested regions where Clinton looks stronger than Obama (specifically: PA/OH and FL) and contested regions where Obama looks stronger than Clinton (specifically WI/MN/IA, WA/OR, and VA) and for either to win they'll need to do pretty well in some regions where the other one is better.
« Objectives | Main | Mmmm....Beer »
The Swing States
28 Apr 2008 02:59 pm
Comments (38)
Obama should pick Richardson. Progressive whites, young folks, Latinos & African Americans, Republicans who love America more than their party.
Pennsylvania has voted democratic in the past 4 presidential elections. I am not sure it qualifies as a swing state.
On 4/26, Clinton and Obama each picked up one super. Today, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) endorsed Obama.
She needs to take supers by a 2 to 1 margin, but she's been consistently running below even a 50/50 split for the past month and a half (and maybe longer).
Drip, drip, drip.
Matt, I agree that early polls this far out are relatively meaningless. However, if you are going to use them for "electability" arguments, you need to be careful about generalizing to particular regions without looking at the underlying math. The sad truth is that Obama (who WILL be the nominee, no matter what I or other Hillary people out there might "hope" for) is indeed weaker in PA, OH, and FL, which combine for 69 electoral votes. Even if you give Obama every single state you mentioned (WI/MI/IA/WA/OR/VA), they combine for 59 EVs. The problem here is that I really cannot envision a scenario in which Hillary sweeps the swing states but then loses WA and OR and all the plains states. She is running on a typical Dem Gore/Kerry model of the base states plus Ohio or Florida to squeak out a victory -- and she looks like she's in a relatively strong position to do just that. The reverse is not true; Obama is in a stronger position to win a huge landslide, because he could win the plains states and Virginia AND win the traditional swing states too. However, I think he is more vulnerable than you're making it out -- a Dem who loses OH and FL and who has to struggle in PA is going to find it very, very difficult to make up that ground somewhere else. The math just isn't there.
I wouldn't bet on Clinton outperforming Obama in OH and PA either. My guess is that once the GOP started campaigning against her, she would slam into a wall around 47-48 points in both.
But anyway, obviously Clinton's swing state argument does in fact depend on ignoring a lot of swing states. So what is new, though? She has been doing this basically since Iowa.
Matt, I agree that early polls this far out are relatively meaningless. However, if you are going to use them for "electability" arguments, you need to be careful about generalizing to particular regions without looking at the underlying math. The sad truth is that Obama (who WILL be the nominee, no matter what I or other Hillary people out there might "hope" for) is indeed weaker in PA, OH, and FL, which combine for 69 electoral votes. Even if you give Obama every single state you mentioned (WI/MI/IA/WA/OR/VA), they combine for 59 EVs. The problem here is that I really cannot envision a scenario in which Hillary sweeps the swing states but then loses WA and OR and all the plains states. If she is competitive then she's competitive. She is running on a typical Dem Gore/Kerry model of the base states plus Ohio or Florida to squeak out a victory -- and she looks like she's in a relatively strong position to do just that. The reverse is not true; Obama is in a stronger position to win a huge landslide, because he could win the plains states and Virginia AND win the traditional swing states too. However, I think he is more vulnerable than you're making it out -- a Dem who loses OH and FL and who has to struggle in PA is going to find it very, very difficult to make up that ground somewhere else, even racking up lots of states out west. The math just isn't there.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to knock Obama. In fact, I think he will ultimately win the swing states and a few states Hillary would have a tough time in (CO, for example). I'm only saying this to refute his supporters who say "who needs Ohio?" or "we're redefining the map!!!" I'm sorry, but those huge swing states are really, really, important, and it's troubling to me as a Democrat that our prohibitive nominee performs slightly worse than his competitor for the nomination in those particular states.
This can't be stressed enough. Given that Clinton will certainly lose the majority of Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hamphire, Washington and Oregon (my guess is that she holds Washington and Minnesota, but loses the others for a net loss of 21 EV), the "Kerry states plus Ohio or Florida" strategy simply won't cut it. It's going to have to be the "Kerry states plus Ohio AND Florida" strategy.
Or to put it another way, any electibility argument should take into account that Hillary is going to have to play defense across the Midwest and Pacific Northwest while focusing on northeastern pickup states, while the only potential loss for Obama is a state in the heart of the Mid Atlantic region -- where he's going to be campaigning heavily anyway.
Ryan,
First, I don't think Clinton is actually in a great position to win Florida ... doing better than Obama there is not the same as doing better than McCain.
Second, since PA was a Kerry state, that basically puts the whole election down to Ohio for Clinton. Again.
Third, and even that is assuming she wins all the other Kerry states. I think it is important to note that it is perfectly plausible she could win Ohio and lose the election out west: she has run very strong as far east as Appalachia, which is why she won PA and Ohio, but she has shown no signs of appealing to people in swing states any farther west.
So, I think it is actually quite wrong to claim if she is competitive she is competitive. Rather, all indications are that she is pretty much a regional candidate, which means she can be competitive in the swing states in some regions and still lose the election by losing the swing states in other regions.
This whole exercise in figuring out who's more "electable" is purely academic at this stage. It would be one thing if there was convincing evidence that one candidate would lose. But the fact that one candidaate polls a handful of points better than another seven months before the election is not going determine the nomination.
The Clinton campaign seems to be trying to argue that the only value of the primary process is to provide some data points to help determine who is more "electable". This is a curious interpretation, since many states choose to hold caucuses and closed primaries. At the end of the day, it's hard to imagine superdelegates buying it. There is a reason she has picked up single digit superdelegates since the eruption of Wright-gate, bitter-gate, Ayers-gate, her "big-state victories" in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, etc.
The argument is more compelling downticket: the states where Clinton has an advantage might deliver a few more House seats. The states where Obama has an advantage might deliver a few more Senate seats.
I know which one I'd prefer, and I also know that certain Democratic leaders in purple states -- Missouri, for instance -- don't want Hillary showing up.
Second, since PA was a Kerry state, that basically puts the whole election down to Ohio for Clinton. Again.
Exactly. 'Kerry's states, plus 300,000 more votes in Ohio' is not the battleground I want to see the Democrats fighting this election. I do not want to see yet more forums with idiot 'undecided' voters in Dayton and Columbus.
Instead, I'd like a battleground where Obama can make the GOP play defense, with good Senate candidates standing alongside him.
Is there a knock against Brian Schweitzer, Democratic governor of Montana? Listen to the guy speak, he has a folksy charm that I think would connect with white working males immediately. And he understands Obama's "There is not a liberal America, or a conservative America..." very well:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUr48lg9Ocs
Pro-gun, pro-choice...I know it's not a strategic EV pick, but I think he could help a lot.
Great points, all. I would just say that wishing PA/OH/FL are the not the true battlegrounds doesn't make it so. Florida is more than 3 Colorados. Ohio is the same as New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada combined. I'm just saying (to Obama supporters) -- please don't get flippant about those stupid white people in Ohio. WE NEED THEM!!!
"I'm only saying this to refute his supporters who say "who needs Ohio?" or "we're redefining the map!!!""
The only reason we're making that argument in the first place is because of Hillary and the entire MSM trying to drum Obama out of the race under the assumption that a PA or OH vote for Hillary in the primary is a vote for McCain in the general.
They stop the nonsense, we stop the nonsense. but she's been given the microphone, and all that comes out is bullshit.
"Great points, all. I would just say that wishing PA/OH/FL are the not the true battlegrounds doesn't make it so. Florida is more than 3 Colorados. Ohio is the same as New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada combined. I'm just saying (to Obama supporters) -- please don't get flippant about those stupid white people in Ohio. WE NEED THEM!!!"
Well, for starters, you need to check your math. Florida isn't more than three Colorados -- it IS three Colorados (27 EV). And NH+AZ+NM+NV = 24 EV, which is more than OH's 20 EV.
But in any event, no one is saying that PA/OH/FL aren't important swing states (well, I guess I'd quibble over Florida -- I don't think it fairly can be classified as a "swing" state at this point). What people are pointing out is that in addition to doing well in the big swing states, the candidate also needs to do well in the small- and medium-sized swing states in the Midwest and West. Hillary very easily could win OH and PA but still lose by a significant number of EVs if she doesn't carry at least three of WI, NH, MN, WA, and OR. Obama does carry these smaller swing states outside of the northeast (as well as Iowa and Colorado), so he can focus on winning Pennsylvania OR North Carolina OR Ohio OR some combination of VA, NM, NV, NE, MT and AK that adds up to 18 EVs.
In other words, there is a very good chance that Hillary will need to win all THREE of PA, OH and FL to become president. There is a very good chance that Obama will only need to win ONE, and it is possible for him to do it while winning NONE.
Great points, all. I would just say that wishing PA/OH/FL are the not the true battlegrounds doesn't make it so. Florida is more than 3 Colorados. Ohio is the same as New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada combined.
Ryan,
No one is disputing that Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are large, significant states in any presidential election. But I very much would disagree with the idea that these three are in isolation "the true battleground." Because saying that it is so doesn't make it so.
You're right, Florida is a lot larger than Colorado. But we've seen a pretty significant chunk of the country where Sen. Obama consistently outperforms Sen. Clinton, whether in primary voting or in head-to-head polling against John McCain. We've also seen a key area of the country where Sen. Clinton is running more strongly. It just isn't the case that winning Ohio and Pennsylvania (the "true battleground") is enough, because if a Democratic candidate wins them and gets swept away in the midwest, mountain west, and pacific northwest, they're sunk. Pure and simple.
Sen. Clinton's strength in Appalachia, Florida, and Arkansas is significant. But the fact that she jeopardizes Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire and Obama puts Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, and even (inexplicably enough, but confirmed by multiple polls) North Dakota and North Carolina in play is also pretty important. Especially when one considers that we've got key Senate races in CO, NH, and MN. I'm skeptical we'll win Florida either way, but I find the idea of consolidating much of the west (where much of the Democratic gains this decade have come from) and Virginia pretty promising.
Sorry if my numbers were slightly off earlier, I must have been looking at an old electoral college map.
You all are right, I am sort of addicted to the notion that the OH/PA/FL are all-important. If Obama manages to get a collection of states to push him over the edge without those big battlegrounds, I'm not going to shed any tears over losing the "real" states. I mean I support Hillary but not to the point of mythologizing rural Ohio.
I think beyond the numbers is the question of how the campaign media narrative shapes up. No one knows how things are going to go and I really do believe Obama will win this election. My fear, though, is let's say Obama clinches the nomination but a week later is down by 10 in FL, 8 in OH, and is tied with McCain in PA. Like me, the media is predisposed to think those three states are the be-all-end-all and I'm worried that Obama is on defense from the very beginning. The "elitist" crap is already primed and the media is just salivating to wreck whoever the nominee is. I guess my point is that if he looks like he's going down in the big swing states the media might not let him go out west and stay out there to campaign and rack up a new, alternative set of electoral votes.
But then again, I guess it comes down to what it's been about all along -- is Obama really a game-changer? I really hope so.
Florida will vote McCain, any scenario that depends on Democrats winning Florida is flawed.
"let's say Obama clinches the nomination but a week later is down by 10 in FL, 8 in OH, and is tied with McCain in PA."
This would be a fantastic scenario for Obama a week after clinching. Again, if he wins the states that he's up in (the Kerry states minus Pennsylvania plus Iowa and Colorado), he only needs to win one additional big state (PA, OH, NC), or a smattering of smaller states (VA plus NM or NV being the most likely combo).
It's actually counterintuitive when you think about it. Due to her weakness in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, Hillary is going to have to "thread the needle" -- win OH or Florida AND hold three of MN, WA, OR, and WI. Due to his strength in those areas, Obama can really focus all of his attention on the mid Atlantic region (we'll use a generous definition that includes Ohio), and he just has to win one of the big states.
Obama's weakness in places like Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Florida mean that he will be even more dependent than Clinton on winning Ohio. The difference is that while Clinton would win Ohio, Obama may not. Clinton wouldn't have to spend as much time in Pennsylvania, or defending what should be Democratic turf in New Jersey. Survey USA polling even has Obama soft in Massachusetts of all places.
John Kerry + (IA,NM,CO,VA) - Pennsylvania = 265
John Kerry + (IA,NM,CO,VA) - PN & NJ = 250
Obama can win, but he definitely has to roll a hard six by winning back Iowa and New Mexico, carrying very difficult states for Democrats like Colorado and Virginia, all while not losing Pennsylvania.
I see Hillary Clinton's possible paths to victory as more plausible:
John Kerry + (OH,FL,AR) - (OR,WI,NH) = 284
John Kerry + (OH,AR,WV,MO,NM) - (OR,WI,NH) = 278
How will Obama win without Jersey?
The 2004 election was closer in NJ than WA.
"John Kerry + (IA,NM,CO,VA) - Pennsylvania = 265
John Kerry + (IA,NM,CO,VA) - PN & NJ = 250"
You're forgetting NH, which gives the Dems the presidency in the first scenario. And I'll grant that if the Dem nominee loses Pennsylvania and NJ, it's game over.
"John Kerry + (OH,FL,AR) - (OR,WI,NH) = 284
John Kerry + (OH,AR,WV,MO,NM) - (OR,WI,NH) = 278"
Sure, if you assume Hillary wins Florida AND Ohio, she probably wins the presidency. And as for your second scenario, I suspect it's more likely that Hillary loses Minnesota and Washington than it is that she wins West Virginia and Missouri. And even if it is just one of the two, she doesn't win.
Start writing on your letterhead,
Mr. Matthew Clinton,
Mr. Matthew Clinton,
Mr. Matthew Clinton.
You're no longer going to be:
Mrs. Matthew Obama.
Mrs. Matthew Obama.
Mrs. Matthew Obama.
He lost. Get over it.
Joe:
Actually I didn't forget New Hampshire.
Minnesota has voted for every Democratic candidate since Nixon's massive landslide against McGovern. I'm confident Clinton would carry Washington state as well. I grant that she would probably lose New Hampshire,Wisconsin and perhaps Oregon.
Current polling has Clinton very competitive in Florida, West Virgina and Missouri... she has a better chance of winning those three states than Obama does of winning Virginia, that's for sure.
(At least a Democrat in the last 50 years has carried those states)
"Current polling has Clinton very competitive in Florida, West Virgina and Missouri... she has a better chance of winning those three states than Obama does of winning Virginia, that's for sure."
Once again, Tim K reveals himself to be a fucking moron who has no idea what's going on in America.
To the person two above: By what argument has he lost? I understand how he COULD lose, but already lost? Idiot. There's not a single objective way to even say he's losing, let alone lost.
If either Democrat can actually win Florida this time around, I'll be rather surprised. Between being very old, Cuban-Americans in Florida hating the Clintons, the strength of the Bush family there, etc., it just isn't a good pick-up for either of them. (In fact, it may be better to have Florida going early for McCain to reinforce the "McCain is too old" meme.) I'm also not sure how Clinton is going to win PA and OH while having to play defense in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. She would definitely be stronger in those two states if she could focus on just them while being able to rely on the fact the Kerry states would stay static, but it doesn't work like that. Instead, she runs the risk of repeating the mistakes Giuliani faced in the primary of assuming prior support means continued support. Obama cut into Clinton's initial lead just about everywhere (including where she won). After all, Obama was getting hit hard all month and whittled Clinton's lead in PA from 24 points down to 10. Add in the fact that it was a closed primary and polls of independents found 53% of PA independents preferred Obama and the picture becomes murkier.
In addition, Obama hasn't exactly hit her hard on the FALN pardons, in part because running directly against Bill Clinton and calling him an enabler of terrorism is not the way to win a Democratic primary. McCain won't have to deal with these qualms. No one but loyal Democrats will care about the difference between Hillary not being directly involved in the pardons and Bill pardoning them to help her out in her Senate race. After all, the FALN did kill Americans and are unrepentant. If she is the nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if her name becomes synonymous with "terrorist sympathizer" over the FALN scandal killing her career.
Tim K, why are you so insistent that a swing state that is quickly becoming a Northeastern state with a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators is less likely to go for Obama than somewhere like WV or Florida (where Gore's connection to her husband cost him a lot of support) going for Clinton? Earlier you were claiming Tennessee was more likely to go for Clinton than VA for Obama, which is frankly stupid and shows how little you know.
55:
Once again you make a vulgar comment totally devoid of content.
Reality Man:
It's not hard to cut into someone else's prior support when you have the ability to outspend them 3 to 1.
Just as McCain will be able to drudge up the Clinton scandals of the 90's against Clinton, he will also be able to call Obama on being a doctrinaire liberal. There are many votes Obama took while in the Illinois state senate, on crime and abortion for instance, that Clinton cannot exploit because this is a Democratic primary but the Republicans will not be so hampered by.
Also, the Republicans' version of the 3:00 AM/Children Ad isn't going to be as tame.
Your comments rarely have anything worth responding to.
Additionally, I don't know where you were in the 90's, but you seem to have some kind of delusional idea that Hillary is a harder target. Republicans here have a saying- the Clintons are their best fundraisers. Obama's liberal votes will be, as you would put it, tame compared to what they will do to Hillary.
If Chelsea Clinton was offended about being asked about her dad ejaculating on an 18-year old, she'd better sit out the general.
Reality Man:
Upsets do happen. Surprises do occur. Old, familiar patterns can change. Yet, in any given election one is better off betting on most things not changing. Dramatic changes are few and far between. If 2008 proves to be a major realignment then sure, there are no safe GOP states, but I don't see any signs of that yet.
Remember that Virginia had burgeoning suburbs and a popular Democratic governor in 2004 as well, and Bush did better against Kerry than he had against Gore. I still think Tennessee is as likely to go Democratic this year as Virginia, even though both states are more GOP than Democratic. Considering Tennessee and West Virginia have voted for every successful Democratic candidate in generations, while Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat since Harry Truman... I hardly think it's a stupid thought to have.
55:
I'm loathe to respond to you in the same gutter language you seem to employ in political debate (if that's what you want to call it), but maybe it's all you will understand. It's not about being a target, it's about not being a pussy who can't fight back. That's Obama. We know Clinton can not only take a punch, but she can land one. Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania have all shown that she's a closer who can get the job done when the going gets tough, while he coasts and let's himself get beat time and again even when he has millions of dollars to play with.
Stay classy 55, you help explain why Matt has been seen by Marc Ambinder rewriting his columns for the past five months.
Anyway, breathe deep 55, all is not lost, one empty suit has gone down, that is all.
The real victim here is in fact Matt.
"It's not hard to cut into someone else's prior support when you have the ability to outspend them 3 to 1.
Just as McCain will be able to drudge up the Clinton scandals of the 90's against Clinton, he will also be able to call Obama on being a doctrinaire liberal. There are many votes Obama took while in the Illinois state senate, on crime and abortion for instance, that Clinton cannot exploit because this is a Democratic primary but the Republicans will not be so hampered by.
Also, the Republicans' version of the 3:00 AM/Children Ad isn't going to be as tame.
Posted by Tim K | April 29, 2008 1:54 AM"
Except Gore, a local guy from a powerful local family with a long history in the state, couldn't capture Tennessee in part because of his long association with the Clintons. How is it somehow all of a sudden supposed to go for someone who is an actual Clinton? In addition, Ford shows more charisma while sleeping than Clinton shows in a week, yet he still lost. Where is Clinton's win there supposed to come from?
Also, just because someone spends a lot of money to cut into someone else's lead doesn't erase that skill. A huge part of political campaigning is fundraising. This has been a big reason why Republicans, who often have had more success at fundraising than Democrats, have continued to beat Democrats at the polls for so long. Obama has shown to be better at that than any other Democrat in recent years. After all, it's not like Obama and McCain will be forced to spend exactly the same amount of money in each state. If he has to outspend McCain 3-1 while starting with a lot more funds in order to win, then so be it. As for Clinton, it's actually rather hard to lose a major lead after having near-universal name recognition and having the guy who has more or less been the biggest face for the party in your corner and then still blowing a sizeable lead. Gore didn't come anywhere near losing as badly as Clinton has and even then Bill has campaigned a lot harder for Hillary than he ever did for Gore. She should be embarrassed that she is losing.
In addition, Obama voting for some liberal stuff isn't going to hurt him as much as once McCain goes full-out on the FALN stuff. After all, one of his big liberal accomplishments there was anti-torture legislation. McCain will have trouble attacking him on that without publicly flip-flopping further on torture. The law-and-order attacks McCain could use simply have less salience today (when movies like "The Brave One" flop horribly) than back in the 1970's and 1980's when crime was a major concern (and movies like "Dirty Harry" were hits). I notice you keep on ignoring the FALN issue which could kill her career. Murderous terrorists are now free because it was politically useful for Hillary. That is unforgivable. These are people who killed Americans without remorse, yet Bill set them free to give a political advantage to his wife. They don't even recognize the pardons themselves because they don't recognize that the US government has any power over them. They are purely anti-American, yet it was better for Bill and Hillary to let them go just so Hillary could have an easier time against an empty suit like Lazio. McCain is also going to have thinly-veiled sexist attacks on her that Obama could not make without completely alienating younger women, whom McCain doesn't need as much. What Obama will face vs. McCain will just be a harsher version of what he faced vs. Clinton, while Clinton will face a completely different animal in McCain.
Tim K likes to claim the norm is for the electoral map to remain largely unchanged from presidential election to presidential election, but actually the opposite is the case: often the winner wins a lot of states his party's nominee did not win the last round (or in some cases loses a lot of new states, such as from Reagan in '84 to Bush in '88)), and similarly the loser often loses (or in some cases wins) a lot of new states.
So, the relatively unchanged map from 2000 to 2004 was the exception, not the rule--and Tim K knows this (I know he knows this, since I went through all the recent elections for him on a previous occasion). Which makes him a liar.
Ho boy, Tim K has got to be on the Clinton payroll.
Not blowing giant leads = staying tough? No. It means she won in states that were demographically favorable to her. Where was her toughness as she got pummeled in 12 consecutive contests? Nowhere, because it's a myth. She is a good campaigner, I'll give you that, and with Bill (who is the best campaigner alive) helping, she manages to hold on to 20 point leads. That is all.
She had over 100 million raised before the contests even started. She has Bill Clinton campaigning for her. She had name recognition no other candidate could dream of, not even Edwards, which should help immensely in early primaries. She had opponents who, because they are loyal Democrats, refuse to dig into the million Clinton scandals, even the ones just this decade, that the GOP will bring up every single day. Her opponent is a black freshman senator named Barack Hussein Obama. In 2007, the press called her "inevitable" every single day. Even she predicted that it would be over on 2/5. Why can't Hillary close the deal?
he lost get over it- answer the question- I understand how he COULD lose, but already lost? What is the reasoning behind this? He's ahead by every single objective measure.
Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping
Into the future
Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping
Into the future
I wanna fly like an eagle to the sea
Fly like an eagle, let my spirit carry me
I want to fly like an eagle 'till I'm free
Oh, lord, through the revolution
Feed the babies
Who don't get enough to eat
Shoe the children
New shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin' in the street
Oho, there's a solution
I wanna fly like an eagle to the sea
Fly like an eagle, let my spirit carry me
I want to fly like an eagle 'till I'm free
Fly through the revolution
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
Dododo...
I want to fly like an eagle to the sea
Fly like an eagle, let my spirit carry me
I want to fly like an eagle 'till I'm free
Fly through the revolution
(Tick, tock, tick) Do, do, dodo
(Tick, tock, tick)
(Tick, tock, tick) Do, do, dodo
(Tick, tock, tick) Do, do, dodo
(Tick, tock, tick) Do, do, dodo
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future
DTM:
You aren't as much of a genius as you clearly think you are, to be presuming to give me lessons about electoral history.
Realigning elections are extremely rare in American politics: the last case of one where academics can all agree is 1932. 1968 and 1980 are possible cases of realignments, but Republican gains were not really sustained enough over a long period for those to qualify as the start of a Republican period. But I digress.
Take the South as an example. Six Southern states (TX,SC,NC,AL,MS & VA) have voted for the Republican candidate in each of the last seven presidential elections without exception. Go back even further and it is 9 out of 10 (Carter's Southern sweep being the sole exception). Virginia - the state so many of you claim is a swing state this year - has gone Republican in all but two of the last fifteen (yes, I repeat, FIFTEEN) presidential elections. One of those isolated victories was in Johnson's massive landslide in 1964, the other was by Harry S. Truman. Are these examples more revealing of continuity or volatility? The question answers itself.
I happen to think Virginia and Colorado could be quite competitive this year, the former largely because Warner will be on the ballot as well. But competitive doesn't make a win probable in either. I would make the same point in the Democrats' favor in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Washington. Their traditional support for Democratic candidates run deep so even when certain trends favor the GOP in those states (as some do) the Dems still have the upper hand.
If Obama is the nominee and is heading into September even in the polls with McCain I would advise him to invest resources in states that have demonstrated in fact, rather than just in theory, to vote for successful Democratic presidential nominees, like Ohio, Missouri and Nevada, and be sure to hold onto Michigan and Pennsylvania, rather than gamble on VA and CO.
Comments closed May 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Geez, Matt. After all this time, you think you'd understand Clinton Calculus. Of course states where Obama looks stronger than Clinton (CO being a biggie) don't count. Just like caucus states don't count. Many southern states don't count. And MI and FL don't count ... until she needs them to count, in which case they HAVE to count, but only in a manner that benefits her.
Posted by LFC | April 28, 2008 3:24 PM