Times Change

I think to really appreciate how foolish it is to worry about literally regaining the loyalty of "Reagan Democrats" you need to look at the winning coalition Jimmy Carter assembled in 1976. That's the coalition Reagan disrupted, and I think it's safe to say that it's a coalition that's dead for good. It'll be a cold day in hell before you see someone win New York and Texas while losing California and Illinois. At this point, the past is a different country in political terms.

UPDATE: And note that even in the more normal 1968, Humphrey carried Texas but badly lost in Vermont. Humphrey did better in West Virginia than in Pennsylvania which could never happen for a Democrat these days, and Nixon got a higher percentage of the vote in Oregon than in Oklahoma.

Comments

Red and blue reversed from their 2008 meanings?

Posted by eeyn524 | May 25, 2008 4:07 PM

They are.

Go here for the same map with the usual colors: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/1976_Electoral_College_Map.png

Posted by Mike in Denmark | May 25, 2008 4:13 PM

The colors in the map above are the 'usual' colors. Red for Republicans and Blue for Democrats only started in 2000. Before that, it was the reverse in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996.

Posted by Scott P. | May 25, 2008 4:27 PM

That's a really interesting map.

Posted by Korha | May 25, 2008 4:31 PM

Not only have there been huge political realignments, but there have been massive population shifts. New York won't be having 41 electoral votes again anytime soon, and Florida's 17 would be a joke.

Posted by phil | May 25, 2008 4:32 PM

Carter's winning coalition was already a throwback in 1976. Compare the map to 1968. Both elections were very close in the overall popular vote, but statewide results were very different.

Basically, in the northeast and midwest, which had been traditionally Republican before the New Deal, Carter did worse than Humphrey had. Carter did better in the south and, to a lesser extent, the west, than Humphrey had (although he still lost the west)

If you compare the results in the states north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi, for instance, you see that Humphrey beat Nixon 47.36% to 44.34% - 3.02%, while losing the overall national popular vote by 0.7%. Carter won those states by only 0.67%, while winning the overall national vote by 2.06%. So despite doing better overall, Carter did considerably worse than Humphrey had in the northeast/industrial midwest, the very area which, along with California, has been the heart of the Democratic Party since the 90s. He did especially poorly in the suburbs, which went strongly for Ford. And again, it is increasing Democratic support in those suburbs which has made the Democrats competitive nationally.

Carter made up the difference by winning in the south. Of the 11 former confederate states, Carter won all but Virginia, the best showing for a Democrat since 1944, the last year of the Solid South. A very weird year, 1976.

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 4:35 PM

Yeah, I agree with John. The solid south in 1976 was an anachronism, even then.

Posted by Marshall | May 25, 2008 4:39 PM

The map does demonstrate how difficult a proposition it will be for Obama to win Virginia. That was the only Southern state Carter didn't win in 1976, just as Johnson couldn't in 1964 despite a massive landslide. Could it happen? Yes. With John Warner on the ticket there's a very good chance. Without him I am very skeptical. However, I would not select John Warner as Veep if I were Obama because sacrificing an almost sure Senate pick-up is not worth Virginia's 13 electoral votes, when they could be made up elsewhere by selecting Strickland, Nelson or Clinton.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 4:46 PM

Tim K,

John Warner? You must have mistyped? I can't figure out why should Obama select an 81 year old Republican Senator as his running mate? Nor why it sacrifices a senate seat.

Posted by br | May 25, 2008 4:50 PM

Sorry, I meant MARK Warner... not John Warner. Although having John Warner as Veep would definitely ensure carrying Virginia, I somehow doubt he would say yes. Haha

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Small correction: The 2008 VA Senate candidate is Mark Warner, not John Warner. John Warner is the retiring incumbent.

------------------

Just as it doesn't make much sense to treat the map, as a whole, as a template for the 2008 election, it doesn't necessarily make sense to assume that things are the same w/ regard to any given state. The demographics of some states have changed dramatically since 1976, and Virginia is one of them.

The suburbs of Northern Virginia have grown substantially, and they are dominated by affluent, highly educated whites, many of whom are liberal Democrats.

Obama could very likely put together a coalition of these white liberals and African Americans that would carry the state, as he did in the primary.

Posted by THS | May 25, 2008 4:57 PM

Tim K - Johnson did win Virginia in 1964, although it was relatively close.

At any rate, Virginia is demographically very very different today than it was in 1976. The extraordinary growth of the Northern Virginia suburbs, which are not particularly southern.

I would add that the fact that Virginia was the only southern state to go for Ford in 1976 is actually encouraging for Obama. Basically, Virginia voted for Ford in 1976 because it had for a long time been one of the least solidly Democratic of the Solid South. The reason for this was that it was always less southern than the rest of the south, allowing for the relatively early development of a Republican Party.

If you look at the county by county map in 1976, it's a little complicated, but basically Carter won the heavily African-American parts of the state, the heavily Democratic inner DC suburbs of Alexandria and Arlington, and in a lot of white rural areas where conservative Democrats were still dominant. Ford won the state by winning the wealthy suburbs that are now trending Democratic - Fairfax County, Virginia Beach, and the Richmond suburbs. That is to say - Ford largely won Virginia by winning the non-southern parts of it. Those less-southern parts have massively increased their share of the vote in Virginia, and have come considerably more Democratic than they were in 1976 (particularly Northern Virginia - Richmond suburbs and Virginia Beach are still fairly Republican). At the same time, the white areas that Carter won have been becoming more Republican. Virginia, like the country as a whole, is quite different today than it was in 1976.

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 5:01 PM

THS:

Again, yes I did mean to say Mark Warner, not John.

I am not ignorant of the demographic changes to Virginia's electorate due to the burgeoning suburbs of DC that have helped turn Virginia purple; I simply think it is a very reddish shape of purple.

When a state has so consistently voted for one party's candidate going back decades and without exception, one must have a healthy skepticism of early polling showing the opposite to be true.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 5:05 PM

This, by the way, is one reason to be somewhat skeptical of the 'fundamentals' political science models for predicting general elections based on economic growth and what-not. The models are necessarily based on only a few samples and not only ignore a great many exogenous variables but skim over quite a bit of ferment below the headline popular vote number.

The cultural shifts that under pin the swap of electoral coalitions for the Democrats and Republicans certainly aren't explained by those models. And those shifts weren't necessarily inevitable, though there is a certain Newtonian action/reaction logic to them.

Posted by AJ | May 25, 2008 5:11 PM

But it's not without exception. There's the current governor, Mark Warner, Chuck Robb, and Doug Wilder. There's also Jim Webb. Republican candidates have won the presidency, but I'm prepared to think that, with an appealing candidate and high levels of enthusiasm among African Americans, the state could go Democratic this time.

Posted by THS | May 25, 2008 5:15 PM

Matt - Clinton did better in West Virginia than he did in Pennsylvania. Both times.

Oregon and Vermont are, indeed, distinct changes in the political map that have occurred since 1968 and 1976. Vermont was once, not actually all that long ago, the most reliably Republican state in the country. It was never terribly conservative - it always elected relatively liberal Republicans - but it was very very Republican, to the extent that the Democratic Party barely even existed. Patrick Leahy in 1974 (in the aftermath of Watergate) was the first Democrat ever elected as Senator from the state, and is still the only Democrat ever to have been elected as a Vermont Senator (Sanders is independent). Until Bernie Sanders' election to congress in 1990, the states' house delegation had consisted entirely of Republicans since the 1850s, with the lone exception of one term Democrat William Meyer, elected in 1958. Meyer and current representative Peter Welch are still the only Democrats elected to the House from Vermont since the Civil War. The only presidential election prior to 1992 when Vermont voted Democratic was in LBJ's landslide in 1964, when a lot of liberal northeastern Republicans defected or stayed home (and this is of all elections, including prior to the civil war).

The ideological realignment of America's political parties has now made Vermont into a safe Democratic state, but this is actually a quite recent development.

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 5:24 PM

When a state has so consistently voted for one party's candidate going back decades and without exception, one must have a healthy skepticism of early polling showing the opposite to be true.

So I would assume that in 1992, it would have been entirely unreasonable to expect Clinton to win Vermont, which, after all, had only voted for a Democrat once before ever?

In 2000, I imagine thinking that Bush would have a good chance to win West Virginia was unwise. After all, Democrats had won it every year since 1932, with the exception of massive popular vote wins for incumbent Republican presidents in 1956, 1972, and 1984.

To say nothing of Barry Goldwater's shocking win in Georgia in 1964 - Georgia had voted Democratic in every election that it had actually participated in since 1852 (it didn't vote in 1864, but had voted for Democrats even during Reconstruction).

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 5:32 PM

What people have to remember is how dynamic electorates can be in terms of changing demographics. Huge chunks of the electorate that gave Reagan his landslide in 1984 are no longer among us. Even more true, of course, with respect to the electoral maps of 1976 and 1968.

Carter was I think sui generis -- he ran in part on his Southern evangelical identity before the evengelicals had become firmly identified with Republicans politics, before abortion rights had become a defined part of party identity and a major issue in national elections.

Virginia is a very different State today than it was even ten years ago thanks to the growth of its DC suburbs. I think Obama can put it in play without having to campaign any differently.

Matt -- the old cliche used to be "as Maine goes so goes the nation -- however, following FDR's landslide win over Alf Landon in 1936, Democratic boss James Farley noted that "as Maine goes so goes Vermont" the only two states to go for Landon.

Posted by Sir Charles | May 25, 2008 5:40 PM

John:

Dukakis only lost Vermont by 4% in 1988. Carter came 6% short of Reagan in 1980. So while it would have been unreasonable to EXPECT Vermont to vote for Clinton in 1992 based on voting history alone, it was clearly becoming a competitive state.

Virginia's trend has been decidedly uneven. Carter lost it by 2% to Ford in a competitive race in 1976. But then Carter lost Virginia by 13% to Reagan, and Reagan beat Mondale by 25%, and Dukakis lost Virginia by 20% four years later. Bill Clinton came within 5% of winning Virginia in 1992 and 2% in 1996, in three-way races. Gore lost Virginia by 8% to George W. Bush eight years ago, but four years later Kerry lost it by 8%.

Look at the Democratic nominee's percentage in Virginia over the last few elections and the results appear more consistent:

2004: 45.48%
2000: 44.44
1996: 45.15
1992: 40.59%
1988: 39.23%
1984: 37.09%
1980: 40.31%
1976: 47.96%
------------
1960: 46.96%
------------
1948: 47.89%

If the Democratic nominee does better than 48% in Virginia this November I will be shocked.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 6:49 PM

Yeah, Vermont was trending Democratic for a while before 1992. The same can't be said for West Virginia in 2000, though. Clinton had won it big twice, Dukakis and Carter won it fairly solidly (about 5%) in spite of big losses nationwide in 1988 and 1980, Carter and Humphrey won it easily in 1968 and 1976, etc. It had not elected a Republican senator since 1956, and its congressional delegation had been entirely Democratic since the 1982 elections. And yet, Bush won it easily in 2000. There was a 20 point swing to the Republicans between 1996 to 2000, in an election when the overall swing was only 8 points.

Virginia has shown signs of incipient blueness for some time - considerably greater signs, I think, than West Virginia had been showing of going Republican in early 2000 (Republicans had won the gubernatorial race in 1996, but gubernatorial races are frequently very separated from national politics.) Only a five point shift would be required to deliver the state to Obama. This is not necessarily going to happen, but it hardly seems wildly unlikely - major shifts of that kind happen all the time.

For instance, Colorado, which has been pretty consistently Republican in presidential races, is pretty clearly swinging towards the Democrats, and everyone seems to agree that Obama is likely to win it. Virginia seems likely to be more difficult, but I don't see why past history should make Virginia so much more unlikely - Colorado's history of voting for Republican presidential candidates is nearly as strong as Virginia's (it only went for Clinton in 1992 because of the Perot factor).

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 7:09 PM

Red for Republicans and Blue for Democrats only started in 2000.

Actually, it started after 2000, or perhaps during the recount controversy. I remember that on election night 2000 and the next day, everyone was using red-vs-blue (presumably because they're the two colors from our flag, and they're not confused by the most common forms of colorblindness) but different outlets (the New York Times, CNN, etcetera) assigned red and blue to one party or the other. It was only later that blue came to mean Democratic, and red Republican, and I've always wondered how the consensus emerged.

Note also that the colors don't make a whole lot of sense. In Britain, which has been identifying parties with colors rather longer than eight years, blue is associated with the mainstream right Conservatives and red is associated with the mainstream left Labour (and red has been associated with the left globally since at least the beginning of the twentieth century, at least for the extreme left).

Posted by Warren Terra | May 25, 2008 7:29 PM

and red has been associated with the left globally since at least the beginning of the twentieth century, at least for the extreme left).

If by "the beginning of the twentieth century," you mean "the early nineteenth century."

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 8:10 PM

John:

I never said "wildly unlikely." Just difficult. I don't think Colorado is in the bag either - it's going to be a very close one. For this reason I find trying to design a Democratic path to 270 electoral votes that doesn't include either Ohio or Florida is problematic, if not dubious.

You're right, governorships are often quite separate from campaigns for national office. That's why trying to draw conclusion because of Warner and Kaine's gubernatorial wins in Virginia is not a good idea. It's true that Webb was able to win the senate race there in 2006 (in a solid Democratic year, and due to Allen's 'macaca' gaffe), that was an extremely narrow win by a moderate Democrat and former Reagan cabinet secretary. If Obama performs even a few thousand votes behind Webb's result he will fail to carry the state.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 8:17 PM

Also color coding changes. I remember that election and saw that map on election night. Seeing it again, I am struck by how, back then, the MSM used red to stand for Democrat (red baiters). It took me a while to figure out which color stood for which candidate (even though it was very clearly indicated).

How about using some other coding (say green for Dems and yellow for Republicans) giving no information on the date of the election and challenging people to figure out which party is which ?

I'd guess that most people who get 1996 right will get 1896 wrong no ?

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 25, 2008 8:35 PM

Red for center-left and blue for center-right isn't just Britain. On election night in Canada, the CBC (one of the benefits of living in Detroit) will color the maps red for Liberal seats and blue for Conservative seats (and talk about coloring the map "Tory blue" when Mulroney won his elections). Not sure why we reversed it in the U.S. (more of that American contrariness that gives us English measurements, no numerals on coins, and one-color/one-size notes, but those are other rants).

Back to the main point, though, demographics and opinions within those demographics change over time. Within the years of my awareness of politics, California, Illinois, and New Jersey were pretty marginal states, with all three having a small Rep. advantage in close elections ('60, '68, '76). Michigan went from solidly Dem. to the most marginal of states from about 1980-1992 to its present status as reasonably safely Dem. Of course, Texas, for one, has gone the other way.

I guess I'd be surprised if Obama wins Virginia, but he ought to be able to hold it close enough that McCain has to spend money on ad buys in DC, which would be refreshing.

Posted by Don K | May 25, 2008 8:43 PM

The classical political rivalry colors are Blue and Green. That no longer seems to be a set of defining colors for major rivalries outside of Glasgow Celtic vs. Rangers matches.

Posted by Tyro | May 25, 2008 8:44 PM

Forget the maps for a moment. This post is beyond parody.

That young Matt's not sure if Northern White Ethnic Catholics and Working & Lower-Middle-Class Whites in the non-Southern States ("Reagan Democrats") really exist in large numbers is comic, touching, provincial and truly pathetic (in, yeah, every sense of the word.)

Granted, no doubt, they didn't come into play much at either Dalton or Harvard, but those of us with, ahem, less sheltered backgrounds, of course, know they're out there.

And while they may not put New Jersey or even Michigan into play this election they're going to be a real factor in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

It's going to be a young African-American against a war hero with a "maverick" image.

Matt writes "I think to really appreciate how foolish it is to worry about literally regaining the loyalty of "Reagan Democrats" and then segues into an irrelevant map. Indeed, the states that are up have changed. But to be a political blogger and not to understand the problem with "Reagan Democrats" (why we should damn well worry) is to be ignorant of America and the political landscape to the point of incompetence!

Yeah, concede the South. The maps (states in play) have changed. So what? These people remain a huge factor.

And to say that to worry about these folks is "foolish" (and that we have to "appreciate" how "foolish" it is) is mind boggling! Is Yeglsias really that ignorant of the nation he lives in and writes about? For the moment at least the kid has his head further up his young, privileged, incredibly provincial ass than even Petey would say.

The maps are irrelevant. Got it? The "Reagan Democrats" (white ethnic Catholics and lower and middle-class non-Southern white) remain huge.

Dumb, dumb, dumb!

Posted by a guy who forget how young and out of it Matt is | May 25, 2008 8:45 PM

I almost get the sense that many Obama partisans somehow think that this election can be won with historic turnout by African Americans and young people. Never mind losing Seniors, or a smaller gender gap, or reduced margins with Jewish voters and Latinos, and Catholics. Never mind losing the White male vote by 15 points or more. None of that matters, apparently, because we have blacks and college kids set to come out in record numbers.

Seriously, folks. That may be enough to win the Iowa Democratic caucuses, or the South Carolina Democratic primary. But this is a general election.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 8:54 PM

Tim K - defeating an incumbent senator who is a popular former governor is somewhat different from a presidential election. For instance, Gore won Pennsylvania relatively easily in 2000, while at the same time Santorum was winning a solid victory for re-election among exactly the same voters.

Beyond that, I'll say that the main reason for optimism in Virginia is that it's not just the two gubernatorial races (which, I agree, do not, on their own, necessarily mean very much) and the razor-thin Senate margin. It's that Virginia is one of the only states where Kerry did better than Gore, in spite of Kerry not even really contesting it. It's that Fairfax County is getting bigger and more Democratic by the day. It's that Democrats seem to be doing well in virtually all elections in the state, and Mark Warner looks poised for a very easy victory in the Senate election this year (although the Republicans have helped him by giving the nomination to Gilmore instead of Tom Davis, I think the early matchup polls before this was clear showed Warner beating Davis by almost as large a margin as he beats Gilmore).

Which is not to say that it's incredibly likely that Obama will win Virginia - I'd give it about 2/3 odds that McCain will win. But it should certainly be close, and Obama should certainly contest it.

As far as a Democratic map without Ohio or Florida, I'm not sure why that's necessary - I see no reason to think that Ohio is out of reach for Obama. But just the Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico gives Obama the win, and that hardly seems unlikely. And that's assuming the election is close enough that we even really need to worry about the electoral map. Usually it isn't. I would not be at all surprised to see McCain crater after the Democratic National Convention and never really recover, and to see Obama closer to 350 than 270 electoral votes. The fundamentals for Republicans this year are terrible.

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 9:04 PM

John:

I agree with you that Obama should contest Virginia. There is certainly no reason for him not to, as he will have enough resources to play on a wide field. I think the most likely scenario is a McCain victory in Virginia by 2 points, 50%-48%. That's still better than any Democrat has done in Virginia since 1948. It's that additional 2-3% that I think will be particularly tough, even with Fairfax county.

The Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico would get Obama past 270, but if he loses New Hampshire it's a tie. If he also loses Wisconsin (which has been trending Republican), then it's over.

I do not think that Ohio is out of reach for Obama, although he is certainly weaker than than Clinton would be. Florida is probably out of reach unless he puts Clinton or a Floridian on the ticket.

Maybe people here have made the argument that winning Ohio or Florida is part of some old electoral map that is somehow now irrelevant and that Obama is going to draw an entirely new map. I completely reject that as Pollyanna. On the bright side I doubt very much the Obama campaign is under similar illusions about what is possible.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 9:26 PM

Of course, Texas, for one, has gone the other way.

It's odd that Texas has become so heavily Republican, given its rapidly increasing Hispanic population.

Posted by Peter | May 25, 2008 9:43 PM

Re: The "Reagan Democrats" (white ethnic Catholics and lower and middle-class non-Southern white) remain huge.

I completely disagree. There are no "Reagan Democrats" and haven't been for a long time (basically since Reagan himself departed the scene). In the South most of them became Republicans. In the north some became Republicans, but most went back to being Democrats. Hence the (re)bluing of Michigan.

Posted by JonF | May 25, 2008 10:04 PM

Matt,

Great map.

Posted by Kuros | May 25, 2008 10:42 PM

My gut feeling is that the Ohio/Florida business specifically, and obsessive electoral vote counting in general is a loser. As much as I may despise the republicans of the past years, they've won by sticking to the fundamentals: create a sympathetic dialog, smear your opponent, get your voters to the polls, and keep your opponent's voters at home.

The "determine where we need to win and then focus on wining in that geographic area" strategy is a significant part of why Clinton lost the nomination, and now we're seeing the Clinton people trying to get that same thinking going in the general election. The last two election cycles have really given a skewed view of the likelihood that an election is going to be one or lost based on a few states. My guess is that this election will be decided more electoral votes then any two states combined that are decided by less then 5%.

If Tim K's geographic strategy works so well then why did Clinton lose the nomination by a significant number of delegates, while essentially tying the popular vote? The dynamic of the election simply turned out to be different than the bean counters expected, so the candidate that focused on narrative won over the candidate that focused on naked tactics.

Posted by JK | May 25, 2008 10:51 PM

Also, great history of Vermont politics John, I was already to set my home states' record straight after Matt's somewhat misleading reference, but you already did a great job of it.

Posted by JK | May 25, 2008 10:59 PM

That's still better than any Democrat has done in Virginia since 1948.

Once again, LBJ won Virginia in 1964.

The Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico would get Obama past 270, but if he loses New Hampshire it's a tie. If he also loses Wisconsin (which has been trending Republican), then it's over.

Obama very likely wins in the House if it's a tie (the Democrats control 27 states at the moment, and are more likely to gain than to lose. Especially true if he wins the popular vote).

Beyond that, I think that, while Wisconsin has been close in the last two presidential elections, all signs suggest that it will not be as close this time around, at least if Obama is the nominee. I worry more about Pennsylvania than Wisconsin.

Florida is probably out of reach unless he puts Clinton or a Floridian on the ticket.

I think the idea that Clinton would actually bring along states as the vice presidential nominee is unlikely (she might help in Arkansas, which is a quasi-home state for her, but not anywhere else). I would agree that Florida is out of reach for Obama if the election is close. I'm still not convinced the election is going to be close.

Maybe people here have made the argument that winning Ohio or Florida is part of some old electoral map that is somehow now irrelevant and that Obama is going to draw an entirely new map.

It is certainly possible for Obama to win without either Ohio or Florida. I think it's more likely that he will win Ohio, but that he will not actually need Ohio to win. The fact that 2000 and 2004 were close does not mean that 2008 will be. It looks close right now, but we're still at a point where McCain is mostly unscrutinized because the Democratic nomination race is continuing. It seems to me that there's about a 40% chance we'll see a total Republican meltdown, and the election won't be close at all.

It's odd that Texas has become so heavily Republican, given its rapidly increasing Hispanic population.

I was going to put the ridiculously poor showing of Gore and Kerry in Texas down to Bush's favorite son status, except that the state-level Democratic Party has also collapsed. It is indeed strange, especially since the Texas Republican Party is the craziest in the nation. Recent polls suggest it may be swinging back the other direction, though.

Posted by John | May 25, 2008 11:25 PM

JK:

As I'm sure you are well aware, the way delegates are allocated in the Democratic nomination contest is very different from the way electoral votes are awarded in the electoral college. Had the Democratic primaries been winner-take-all by state, like the electoral college, or even winner-take-more, we would be discussing Hillary Clinton's insurmountable lead among pledged delegates instead of Obama's.

The truth is actually the opposite of what you suggested. The Obama campaign won not on narrative, but by organizing very effectively in the caucus states and exploiting the delegate allocation rules more effectively than the Clinton campaign did.

Obsessive electoral vote counting is a loser strategy? Don't assume that just because a candidate wins a landslide in the electoral college, that means they were only focusing on "narrative" and not on electoral votes. The Clinton campaign knew how to count to 270... they made sure to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, California, New Jersey and Illinois both times, and great effort was expended winning Florida in 1996. That wasn't for nothing. In a close election electoral votes count. Do you think Kennedy would have won on narrative alone without Texas and Illinois' electoral votes?

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 11:29 PM

There is a huge difference between "organizing in caucus states" and the type of geographic strategy that I'm so skeptical of. The same goes for leveraging delegate allocation rules or Electoral College rules (namely the winner takes all nature).

What I'm skeptical of is this idea that some electoral votes (or delegates in the primary) are more important than others. Winning Ohio or Florida gets you the votes from those states, but it doesn't get you the nomination. The game just doesn’t simplify that to that extent, it just doesn’t all come down to “X, Y, and Z” states. And pretending that you can simplify the contest that much creates a tendency to ignore other important aspects of the game (I use “game” in the Nashian sense, I don’t mean to trivialize the process).

In my opinion it seems that Clinton thought that if she won certain key states that the nomination would fall into her hands, that she had narrowed down the lynchpin of the nomination game. But it turns out that the game didn’t simplify as well as she believed, and she had ignored a number of other important rules.

I'm also not saying that geographic considerations are always bad. In particular I agree that there are certain parts of the country that are already spoken for, but it's really only about a third to a half of the electoral votes, not 90%+ of them. The problem is that once you’ve gotten yourself to believe that you have simplified the process down to Ohio, you start to ignore the impact of your strategies there on other areas, and what devious things your opponent might be up to in other areas (like sweeping the caucuses).

Sure Florida and Ohio are important, but so is the southwest, the Rockies, the midwest, and the great lakes. In fact out side of the northeast, the deep south, CA, TX and IL, it's all up for graps. I even think the Dems would be wise to keep an eye on New England, McCain’s Maverick streak has a lot of appeal in NH, and the rest of New England isn’t as different from NH as some people believe (particular Maine and VT).

Posted by JK | May 26, 2008 12:00 AM

JK:

It isn't that some electoral votes are more important than others. That's a misstatement of the problem. It is that some states have more electoral votes than others, and some states are more likely to go Democratic than others.

Ohio has 20 electoral votes. That is one vote less than Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico combined. So you can win one state and get 20 votes, or you can win three separate contests and win 21. If you miscalculated and Colorado isn't as competitive as once thought, you're down to a 12 electoral vote gain. Ohio, on the other hand, has voted for the last 3 successful Democratic nominees.

Take a scenario where Barack Obama is able to win Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, Nevada and Virginia (which are the Bush states Obama seems to perform better than Clinton in). That would give him a 291-247 victory over John McCain. But if McCain took New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, then it's 272 - 266 for McCain. Or he could take Wisconsin and Michigan and it's 274-264 for McCain. In other words, it's a fragile electoral map for Obama.

On the other hand if Clinton can take Ohio, Florida and Arkansas for the Democrats (three states where current polling gives her a clear edge over McCain, and where she does much better than Obama) then it's 305-233 for Clinton. Even if McCain wins New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington state, it's still 273-265 for Clinton over McCain.

An electoral college strategy anchored on large swings states is a much surer strategy and does not preclude working at smaller states as well.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:18 AM

To say nothing of Barry Goldwater's shocking win in Georgia in 1964 - Georgia had voted Democratic in every election that it had actually participated in since 1852

In July 1964 LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, saying, "We have lost the South for a generation." He was right. Compare the maps for 1952 and 1964.

Posted by croatoan | May 26, 2008 1:23 AM

I'm really not seeing how you're reducing variables by focusing are larger states. This might be true if large states were equally homogenous as small states, but that's just not the case. Electoral votes are (roughly) based on population, I don't see why it is any more likely that you would miss-predict the outcome of Colorado, than miss-predict the outcome of an equally populous portion of Ohio.

If the facts are as you say them, and Clinton is stronger in OH, FL, and PA, while obama is only stronger in IA, NM, CO, and VA, then the reason we should choose Clinton is that she simply appeals to more people, not because of some magical nature of the people or places where she appeals.

The problem with your argument is that overall Clinton has not appealed to noticeably more people than Obama. Since she as not appealed to significantly more people, then there is obviously a mischaracterization of the race when you argue that she does better in a group of states that adds up to vastly more people (and electoral votes). You need to show that despite the fact that she appeals to no more total people (as opposed to total states), that her coalition is clearly superior. I remain entirely unconvinced that such an argument exists.

Now I do slightly prefer Clinton's geographic appeal, but I really don't think that trumps the fact that her campaign has shown itself to be generally inept. I'll take the guy who has run a brilliant campaign, with a slightly less favorable geographic spread over the woman who appeals in some (arguably) important areas but who’s campaingn appears to be unable to do basic math.

Even if you do believe that Ohio and Florida are vital, you can't believe that a marginally better geographic and trumps ever other aspect of what makes for an effective campaign? We're talking about a woman who throws around assassination references (where I don’t think she meant anything insidious, but there are people with Aspergers with more tact), and who's campaign was apparently unaware that Texas had both a primary and a Caucus until less than a month before the event. She got hammered in rules game by a charismatic political neophyte! The idea that I would prefer her for reasons of electability is nuts.

Posted by JK | May 26, 2008 1:32 AM

JK:

Your analysis is flawed and seems to misunderstand the very nature of the electoral college.

Ohio, being marginal states in the electoral college, makes a 1% swing of the vote in Ohio critical. A less than 1% increase for the Democrats in Ohio gains them 20 electoral votes. A population of equal size representing, say, 1.5% of the vote in North Carolina is, in contrast, insignificant and wins the Democrat zero electoral votes. That's nil.

That's not a random example. Obama's ability to bring out historic African American turnout may easily lead to an increase in the Democratic ticket's vote in Southern states of 4%, for instance. How many electoral votes would an 8% swing in the South gain the Democrats? Excluding Florida, which does not have as significant a black population as most other Southern states, the answer is either 13 or more likely zero. It would deliver a razor-thin victory or loss in one state: Virginia.

In contrast, if Hillary Clinton is able to limit McCain's margins in rural counties in Appalachia and - in so doing - boost the Democratic ticket by 1% in Ohio, then the Democrats will gain 20 electoral votes: that's an election.

Why all the attention in the media of late concerning Obama's statements on the possibility meeting with Ahmadinejad and Raul Castro? Jewish voters and Cuban-Americans are critical in the swing state of Florida. If Obama underperforms with Jewish voters, or allows McCain to run up a margin with Cuban-Americans, then Florida and its 27 electoral votes are out of reach.

As for age, is it more advantageous in the electoral college to appeal to older voters like Clinton or younger voters like Obama?

Ranking states by median age, the oldest 10 states include the swing states of Pennsylvania (#5), Florida (#6), and New Hampshire (#7) which together total 52 electoral votes.

Of the youngest 10 states demographically, only Nevada and Colorado are swing states totally 14 electoral votes.

(it's no coincidence that Clinton does better in the 'older' states, and Obama does better in the 'younger' states)

Wisconsin and Ohio, the most important swing states of 2004, are ranked 16th and 17 oldest respectively.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 2:08 AM

Some recent polls show Obama stronger in PA than Clinton, while ironically Clinton being stronger in NC than Obama. The polls are all over the place right now and it's too close and far out in close states to say that "Obama/McCain has the definite edge over McCain/Obama in Purple State X" based just on polls.

Tim K, Gallup shows that Latinos, people with just a high school education or less, etc. are now solidly behind Obama.

We should remember that in 1976 Carter was the Southern candidate and Ford was more of a Midwestern candidate. In some ways Carter was more of a cultural alien to many parts of Virginia than Ford was, which helped him win the state. Virginia is a state that holds hijab fashion shows these days, after all. It isn't exactly culturally the same as Alabama. I'm not saying Virginia is in the bag for Obama, but pointing out that Carter lost it to Ford in 1976 doesn't tell us that much.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 2:52 AM

Tim, I'd say Florida's just out of reach for Obama period. Fortunately for you Democrats, he probably won't need it. Although you never know this year. This is the first time since 1952 that neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President is running, so it's hard to say how much of Bush's unpopularity will attach to McCain simply by virtue of his being a Republican. Maybe not much at all will. Besides, a lot can happen between now and November. It's not clear that voters react to, or even have a clue about, conditions in Iraq, but if things were to improve enough that either (a) the war looks like much less of a boondoggle than it does today, or (b) McCain can say he'd be able to withdraw by, say, 2010, 2011, that would really undercut Obama's strongest argument to voters. People say if the election becomes a referendum on the economy, Obama wins, but I don't see that. Voters don't identify the economy with McCain, and why would they think that Obama raising capital gains and income tax on the upper brackets, while offering the middle class some paltry $1000 tax credit, is going to pull us out of a recession?

Posted by Asher | May 26, 2008 2:53 AM

Tim, I'd say Florida's just out of reach for Obama period. Fortunately for you Democrats, he probably won't need it. Although you never know this year. This is the first time since 1952 that neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President is running, so it's hard to say how much of Bush's unpopularity will attach to McCain simply by virtue of his being a Republican. Maybe not much at all will. Besides, a lot can happen between now and November. It's not clear that voters react to, or even have a clue about, conditions in Iraq, but if things were to improve enough that either (a) the war looks like much less of a boondoggle than it does today, or (b) McCain can say he'd be able to withdraw by, say, 2010, 2011, that would really undercut Obama's strongest argument to voters. People say if the election becomes a referendum on the economy, Obama wins, but I don't see that. Voters don't identify the economy with McCain, and why would they think that Obama raising capital gains and income tax on the upper brackets, while offering the middle class some paltry $1000 tax credit, is going to pull us out of a recession?

Posted by Asher | May 26, 2008 2:54 AM

Tim K, as I've pointed out many times, post-Elian Florida's Cubans just don't like the Clintons, which is partly why Gore lost the state in 2000.

The problem with your analysis is that your holding all non-Ohio/Florida/Pennsylvania states static. Obama may be weaker there now, but he tends to have better margins in a greater number of Democratic states and thus doesn't have to play that much defense. Clinton, meanwhile, doesn't do that well in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest and would thus have to play defense there. While playing defense there, McCain could campaign solidly in Florida, etc. If Clinton instead switches to Florida/PA/Ohio, she risks losing any edge she has in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. Unless you've solidified your states, you can't really go after swing states with the verve you need to win in them. I don't have the numbers in front of me but Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio probably aren't enough to win and that's granting Clinton all three of your swing states.

In addition, recent polling has the African-American turnout under Clinton falling down to around 70-75% down from where it usually is around 90%. She would need at least 90% African-American turnout to win Ohio, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 3:00 AM

I'm fully aware of how the electoral college works, and the logic that has lead to the Democrats Waterloo in the last two election cycles.

All you've done is state that the electoral college is winner take all by state, and assert the theory that Clinton will do better in close states because she either did better in a primary or polls better among certain demographics (or in the case of Jewish and Cuban voters that there is a manufactured issue that could conceivably be harmful to Obama). You also appear to have forgotten about the Louisiana purchase, and the fact that the country no longer terminates at the Mississippi.

I'll agree that Obama's strength in the Deep South (not VA) is useless. Besides that all the talk of Ohio, Florida, etc doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Any of the swing states could go either way for either candidate. Primary outcomes, polling, demographics, is all fine at a tactical level, but strategically it’s next to useless because there are simply too many variable that could throw it all off. You therefore need to compete everywhere that is remotely competitive, and the Clinton campaign has shown a complete disinterest in broad based campaigning.

A nice analogy might be investing, you can talk all you want about the relative strengths of certain companies, and their likely trajectories, but if you don’t diversity you’re a fool. Clinton has shown a complete inability or unwillingness to talk to more than one type of person at a time. She is very good at talking to that one type of person, but she’s going to get out flanked every time.

Now I’m sure you’ll through back your oh-so-sure state by state analysis, and how it’s all perfectly tuned for that 1% shift in Ohio winning the whole election, but I want an insurance plan. And the best insurance plan in politics is a strong candidate who knows how to campaign, and a political team that can adapt to changing circumstances. I’m not sure Obama meets that standard, but I am sure that Clinton doesn’t. The obsession over finding the key 10,000 people in the key spot to get on your side only solidifies my feelings (not to mention the questionable policy decision made in order to shift a small insular group, but that’s a whole different issue).

Posted by JK | May 26, 2008 3:06 AM

"All you've done is state that the electoral college is winner take all by state, and assert the theory that Clinton will do better in close states because she either did better in a primary or polls better among certain demographics (or in the case of Jewish and Cuban voters that there is a manufactured issue that could conceivably be harmful to Obama)."

Good point. In addition, The idea that Jewish voters won't leap at the chance to vote for the first African-American candidate for president is silly. American Jews are probably the most socially progressive demographic among white voters and have probably done more among whites to drive white Americans to the left on things like race from where white Americans were before the Civil Rights movement.

In addition, the Jewish vote just doesn't add up to that match mathematically. If every single Jewish voter decided to vote for McCain, which simply isn't going to happen, it would reduce Obama's margins in New York and California, but only actually hurt him in Pennsylvania. A lot of the idea that Jews don't like Obama is just poorly deduced from the fact Jewish voters have voted for Clinton, which is surprising considering she is the home state candidate in New York.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 6:37 AM

"If every single Jewish voter decided to vote for McCain, which simply isn't going to happen, it would reduce Obama's margins in New York and California, but only actually hurt him in Pennsylvania."

Should have been:

"If every single Jewish voter decided to vote for McCain, which simply isn't going to happen, it would reduce Obama's margins in New York and California, but only actually hurt him in Florida."

I mean, should we be zeroing on the candidate who can best win us Vietnamese-Americans? That would probably help in Virginia and Oklahoma (where many of the boat people went after the North took the South), but looking at one tiny minority's preferences in a primary, we should be thinking big. I mean, I would be flattered if we spent a lot of time talking about appealing more to Indian-Americans, but we're too small a minority to have such considerations be more than a marginal factor in such political calculations.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 6:42 AM

Key question: is McCain a better campaigner than Clinton?

Clearly, Clinton connected well to certain groups of voters, and Obama's TV ads made little dents in their support, but in other areas, he was surprisingly effective. And now the campaign moved into resemblance of end-game in chess, with slight "material advantage" being slowly converted into a win. In the meantime, McCain pretty much enjoyed a holiday, yet, with mixed results -- dropping in recent polls.

McCain has very good biography and persona, rather dreadful program, plus he is past his prime, telling various false things without trying to be skillful about it. He has liabilities in a campaign on issues, and in a negative campaign. He has "base problems" with extreme religious right that can bite him both ways.

My impression is that GOP may suffer a major implosion, like Democrats suffered during "Reagan revolution". Smart money is not betting on GOP, so GOP is loosing "money primary". Social issues seemingly lost their edge, and in some regions they started playing in the opposite direction.

The effects are curiously regional, but the same pressure is nationwide. Clearly, an Appallachian strategy alone will not make McCain president.

Posted by piotr | May 26, 2008 7:11 AM

Reality Man

AAs were 10% of the OH electorate in 2004 and gave Kerry about 230K votes. Kerry lost white women (46% of the electorate) by ten points or 258K votes.
Given a roughly similar turnout pattern as 2004, Clinton could conceivably win OH even with a 50% decrease in Kerry's AA vote total if she won 5% more of the white woman vote than he did.

Posted by rough math | May 26, 2008 8:53 AM

rough math, good point. However, where are those white women who didn't vote for Kerry but will vote for her come from? Older white women are probably going to vote for McCain no matter who gets the nomination. Outside of the Democratic Party, white women, especially older women, hate Clinton (often seeing her as not someone who knows how to act like a good woman. These are the people she alienated with her "baking cookies" comments). Her support among women exists only among a narrow slice of women in America. For this dynamic to work across the board, she would need to make up for a drop among African-Americans while adding an equal number of white women to her vote total. However, political scientists have found that white women, especially in the Midwest, often take their cues on who to vote for from African-Americans and other minorities (using it as a proxy for compassion and such). The effect of this is even bigger than a candidates states opinion on issues like abortion. If she risks losing African-Americans, she also risks losing a non-insubstantial number of white women as well.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 9:04 AM

Reality Man:

The averages at www.pollster.com show that while individual state polls may be "all over the place" (as they always are), the trends are clear.

-Pennsylvania-

Obama by 4.6%
Clinton by 11.4%

-Ohio-

Obama by 0.8%
Clinton by 6.8%

-Florida-

McCain by 7.3% (vs Obama)
Clinton by 5.3%

-Missouri-

McCain by 7.2% (vs Obama)
McCain by 0.7% (vs Clinton)

-West Virginia- (survey USA 2/26-28/08)

McCain by 18% (vs Obama)
Clinton by 5%

Hillary Clinton has a substantial base of 90 electoral votes (including Arkansas) where she has not only a strong relative advantage over Obama, but an absolute advantage over McCain in the average of general election trial heats.

A similar summary could be given demonstrating Obama advantage in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Virginia.

I just happen to feel Clinton's path to 270 is easier and more strongly rooted in how we know a Democrat can win.

I also don't buy the argument that Clinton would be playing defense more than Obama, who would have to expend more resources defending Pennsylvania, while expending more resources earning the electoral votes of Ohio and Missouri, and much more to compete in Florida if his campaign were so inclined. He would also be unable to compete in Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky no matter the resources allocated.

-Arkansas-

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 9:09 AM

Has Clinton ever sustained a nationwide campaign attacking her from the right? Nope. Obama hasn't attacked Clinton from the center and right yet, so she hasn't had to defend herself in a campaign yet on those fronts. Obama is in the middle of a campaign being attacked from the right and having Clinton nipping at his heels, so at this point it's apples-and-oranges comparing their polls. In addition, the incentives right now for Clinton supporters to say they'll back McCain over Obama vs. Obama supporters to say they'll back McCain over Clinton are higher as a way to scare superdelegates into giving Clinton the nomination. The polls right now very much reflect this.

In addition, one set of polling when they polls have been all over the place during this campaign isn't the end-all and be-all of an argument. Some weeks the polling vs. McCain favors Obama. Some weeks it favors Clinton. This is just a Clinton week. This dynamic will keep on changing until the convention or when Clinton drops out (whichever comes first) and basing your entire electibility argument on it puts you on thin ice. The candidate with no appeal to independents or crossover Republicans who can only get 52% of Americans to say she shares American values is not going to win.

"I also don't buy the argument that Clinton would be playing defense more than Obama, who would have to expend more resources defending Pennsylvania, while expending more resources earning the electoral votes of Ohio and Missouri, and much more to compete in Florida if his campaign were so inclined. He would also be unable to compete in Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky no matter the resources allocated."

If you're going to rely on polling, she would be playing more defense compared to Obama across the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. That's a lot more electoral votes combined than just Pennsylvania. In addition, if you think that she has any real chance winning Tennessee (where both Gore and Harold Ford lost) and Kentucky, you are simply being silly. The chances of any Democrat picking West Virginia, which has been voting on cultural wedge issues the past few cycles, is also low. Arkansas is her only real Southern state. Obama has a much better winning Virginia than Clinton has in Tennessee, West Virginia or Kentucky. Your shtick of saying Clinton has a real shot at these Hail Mary states while dismissing Obama's much better chance of picking up the likes of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, etc. is also rather transparent. The likes of Virginia have real, on-the-ground social changes going on that favors Democrats. Kentucky lacks these (in fact, these culturally Appalachian states have tended to have the least amount of demographic change nationwide).

Clinton is also not going to win a retirement state like Florida vs. McCain, especially not when so many Cubans hate her.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 10:39 AM

Has Clinton ever sustained a nationwide campaign attacking her from the right?

Yes, it was called Whitewater. Oh, and don't forget health care. It's Obama who's never sustained any real political adversity.

In addition, one set of polling when they polls have been all over the place during this campaign isn't the end-all and be-all of an argument.

Polling is the beginning, not the end, of the discussion. But it's more persuasive than your wild assertions about people "hating" Hillary Clinton.

If you're going to rely on polling, she would be playing more defense compared to Obama across the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. That's a lot more electoral votes combined than just Pennsylvania.

Yes, 39 electoral votes to defend where he is stronger to be precise. Obama also has a better shot winning Iowa, and Colorado, which brings us to 55 electoral votes. Virginia is a long shot, but it's much better for Obama than Clinton. So that totals 68 electoral votes where Obama has a discernible advantage over Clinton in the current polling, and a realistic chance of winning.

Clinton, on the other hand, doesn't have to worry about Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes nearly as much. She'll also have an easier time winning Florida (27), Ohio (20), Missouri (11), West Virginia (5), and Arkansas (6). That's 90 electoral votes where Clinton has a clear advantage over Obama and very good chances to win.

I haven't even mentioned Kentucky and Tennessee in my above summary because I agree they are long shots for Clinton. However, it's ironic that you would criticize me for electoral math pie-in-the-sky when Obama supporters still flaunt pie-dreams involving Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, North Carolina and North Dakota.

As for West Virginia, at least Clinton consistently polls ahead there at this stage of the game. That's more than can be said for Obama in Virginia. So I'd be happy to exclude West Virginia from my analysis if you exclude Colorado and Virginia. Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat since Harry Truman, so be careful not to count your chickens.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:01 PM

Oh, and since you bring up Nevada, the latest Rasmussen poll has Obama down 6%, and Clinton up 5%. I didn't include it because I am not basing my analysis on single poll results. Also, I excluded states where both Clinton and Obama have a good chance of winning, like Nevada and New Mexico, or both will have to defend, like Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

This is a discussion I enjoy having, I just wish you didn't treat me as some kind of idiot when I'm clearly pretty well informed on this subject.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:05 PM

Since you brought up Kentucky, a new just released poll by Rasmussen has the following results:

McCain: 57%
Obama: 32%

Clinton: 51%
McCain: 42%

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kentucky/election_2008_kentucky_presidential_election

Are you still sure you don't want to consider Hillary on the ticket?

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:08 PM

"Yes, it was called Whitewater. Oh, and don't forget health care. It's Obama who's never sustained any real political adversity."

She didn't actually win either of those fights. "Sustained" means a lot more than not dying. Instead, those fights came to define how she was viewed nationally in a negative way.

"Are you still sure you don't want to consider Hillary on the ticket?

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:08 PM"

If you're going to rely on polls, Obama-Edwards is the most popular according to the polls. In addition, the VP pick just really doesn't add that much to a ticket in terms of how many voters they bring out, so you're really just arguing passionately for smoke. A VP pick has the more likely effect of turning off a lot of people or making the candidate look foolish, as happened with Eagelton on McGovern's already-doomed ticket in 1972. Clinton's unpopularity is really the best way to boost GOP turnout. The GOP has been rather obvious they had wanted to run against her and thought they would have an easy campaign against her. The fact that you rely on polls of a brief snapshot of time when polls have been moving all over the place shows how weak your argument really is. We are entering the "denial" part of Clinton's campaign when they are most likely say they would rather vote for McCain. In a week or two, the polls will look different

"But it's more persuasive than your wild assertions about people "hating" Hillary Clinton."

The polling on this has been consistent for about a decade. We are talking about a reliable 45% negative rating. Your entire argument rests on a week's worth of polls.

"Clinton, on the other hand, doesn't have to worry about Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes nearly as much. She'll also have an easier time winning Florida (27), Ohio (20), Missouri (11), West Virginia (5), and Arkansas (6). That's 90 electoral votes where Clinton has a clear advantage over Obama and very good chances to win."

That's the thing though, you are relying on polling and are overlooking how often she has been polling poorly in the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest. Instead of backing up your argument, your reliance on a single week's worth of polls looks more like a crutch that makes you look desperate. Reagan vs. Carter looked extremely close a week before the election.

When you're entire argument is based on one week's worth of polls while you are unable to discuss things like demographic changes, campaign framing and narratives, etc., it means your entire argument is ready to evaporate overnight. In addition, you dismiss inconvenient facts as mere opinion, such as the fact that Clinton has polled with very high negatives for years now. These polls in close states tell us very little about what will happen in November. Elections, in the end, are about fundamentals and Clinton's big electoral fundamental is that roughly half of Americans just don't like her, independents don't like her and moderate Republicans don't like her.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 12:35 PM

Reality Man:

The Reagan-Carter race never looked that close in the electoral college, although you're correct that it appeared to be more like a 5% lead for Reagan instead of the 10% it turned out to be. But, again, in the electoral college it always looked like a Reagan blowout.

you dismiss inconvenient facts as mere opinion, such as the fact that Clinton has polled with very high negatives for years now.

I'm not dismissing those facts, but I'm not allowing you to end the discussion based on those facts alone. 40-45% consistently demonstrate a negative view on Hillary Clinton. Clearly, then, enough of the remaining 55-60% of the electorate the remains is willing to vote for her that she is consistently leading in the electoral college. And this isn't a new phenomenon. Her strength in states like Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Ohio goes back months. She has been in a close race with John McCain, and frequently leading, since early 2007. It was only in January and Feburary after Iowa and the debacle in South Carolina that Clinton started falling behind. She has quickly recovered.

We - supporters of Clinton - have been making the argument that Clinton was more electable and that her numbers would be more durable over time. We also made the argument that Obama was not a known quantity and that his electoral map would narrow and unfavorables would rise as time went on and more negative information came to light about him. That is exactly what has happened.

Elections, in the end, are about fundamentals and Clinton's big electoral fundamental is that roughly half of Americans just don't like her, independents don't like her and moderate Republicans don't like her

If that's that, then how come she's winning the electoral college right now and your man's not?

You know who you remind me of? Analysts who insisted Bill Clinton was toast for re-election in late 1995, early 1996. People didn't think he shared their values. They didn't trust him. He had no integrity. He was "Slick Willie" and was inauthentic. There were oh so many scandals. Well guess what? The voters had other ideas.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:48 PM

"I'm not dismissing those facts, but I'm not allowing you to end the discussion based on those facts alone. 40-45% consistently demonstrate a negative view on Hillary Clinton. Clearly, then, enough of the remaining 55-60% of the electorate the remains is willing to vote for her that she is consistently leading in the electoral college."

However, how many people who are actually open to voting for a candidate actually do? Starting with only, at best, 60% of Americans open to the mere possibility of voting for you is actually rather low.

"We - supporters of Clinton - have been making the argument that Clinton was more electable and that her numbers would be more durable over time. We also made the argument that Obama was not a known quantity and that his electoral map would narrow and unfavorables would rise as time went on and more negative information came to light about him. That is exactly what has happened."

For exactly one week. Wow, that's impressive. You have failed to actually address any arguments about what these numbers mean at this very point in the campaign narrative, how these numbers can change, etc.

"If that's that, then how come she's winning the electoral college right now and your man's not?"

Once again, one week's worth of polling isn't that persuasive considering the polling has been all over the place for the entire campaign. You are just looking desperate right now.

"You know who you remind me of? Analysts who insisted Bill Clinton was toast for re-election in late 1995, early 1996. People didn't think he shared their values. They didn't trust him. He had no integrity. He was "Slick Willie" and was inauthentic. There were oh so many scandals. Well guess what? The voters had other ideas.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:48 PM"

No, I'm someone who realizes one week's worth of polling doesn't tell us much. I'm the one here who realizes that this snapshot so far in the future doesn't tell us anything. You're the one arguing that a snapshot in a certain week a little less than half a year before the actual election tells us everything. Those people looking at polling in June of 1992 and January of 1996 were wrong because the numbers changed. Meanwhile, you are looking at numbers far ahead of the actual voting and claiming that they tell us everything, at least enough Clinton should be VP. So do numbers this far ahead tell us ahead a lot of information or not? You can't seem to make up your mind on this point. You are contradicting yourself here and don't even know it. In fact, you are doing here to Obama exactly what those same doubters about Bill Clinton were doing to him in June 1992 and January 1996.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 12:58 PM

Tim,
You tend to get treated as you treat others, and frankly you've been a complete jerk to anyone who disagrees with you, constantly insulting people's intelligence and knowledge. Interestingly this is how the Clinton campaign has dealt with the media and the superdelegates, and it hasn't worked for them either.

Obama won the primary because he was a better campaigner, a better fundraiser, and a more appealing invidividual. And furthermore he did it without stooping to horrible policy ideas like a “gas tax holiday” and diplomatic isolationism in attempts to win over certain “key” groups. This is a woman who had the entire party apperatous on her side months before the first vote was cast, but managed to lose the pledged delegate count on unadulterated bad campaigning. She, with all the fundraising sources of Bill Clinton, and as a senator from New York (the biggest source of political cash outside of Abu Dhabi), managed to get out fundraised by a first term senator.

The fact that she polls a few points better in Ohio (I don’t buy the PA stuff, that was about the political machine, and the polls are just about the aftermath of a victory), after literally promising to give government handouts to anyone who drives a car, does not give me a great amount of comfort give that she has proven to be a terrible candidate.

Posted by JK | May 26, 2008 1:00 PM

In July 1964 LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, saying, "We have lost the South for a generation."

Except that he didn't actually say that. And Johnson actually won the South, as a whole, in 1964, beating Goldwater by about 100,000 votes in the 11 former Confederate states.

Posted by John | May 26, 2008 1:11 PM

JK:

You tend to get treated as you treat others, and frankly you've been a complete jerk to anyone who disagrees with you, constantly insulting people's intelligence and knowledge.

That's a circular argument. At this point it's become tit-for-tat and who even knows was ruder to who first. It goes back since before Iowa. I'm certainly not going to take full responsibility for the rancor when Obama supporters have been among the most ferociously negative people on this blog.

This is a woman who had the entire party apperatous on her side months before the first vote was cast

That's just not the case. Since Clinton is better known, has been around longer, and has access to her husbands network of supporters, the Clinton segment of the party established was more quickly established and more readily apparent early on. She built up her 40-45% of the primary vote early on, which she was never able to break out of. And he built up her hundreds of endorsements (including super-delegates) early on, but max-ed out at a certain point there as well. What many of us should have realized earlier on was that there was the Clinton half of the party, and the non-Clinton half of that party, and somebody was always going to rise up to seize that half.

The fact that she polls a few points better in Ohio (I don’t buy the PA stuff, that was about the political machine, and the polls are just about the aftermath of a victory)

A few points in Ohio? 1% more in Ohio and John Kerry would have beaten Bush. 4% more in Ohio and Al Gore would have beaten Bush. The fact you are in denial about Pennsylvania and choose to ignore all the available evidence and choose to rationalize them is your own problem. Oh, was that rude? Did it bother you? Go cry about it. If you're rude to me I'll be rude right back.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 1:17 PM

In terms of all this electoral college business, I'm going to suggest that this election may very well turn out like 1980. In spite of terrible fundamentals for the Democrats, doubts about Reagan made the election look close until late in the season. But then those doubts about Reagan were largely allayed, and he ended up winning big. I kind of suspect that something similar is going to happen here (although I think we're geographically polarized enough that Obama can't possibly win as many electoral votes as Reagan did in 80). Right now it looks close, because a lot of people aren't sure about Obama.

But the fundamentals are still terrible for the Republicans, and if Obama can allay some of those doubts, he should win big, and we shouldn't particularly have to worry about adding up to 270.

Posted by John | May 26, 2008 1:22 PM

What many of us should have realized earlier on was that there was the Clinton half of the party, and the non-Clinton half of that party, and somebody was always going to rise up to seize that half.

This is not at all evident. It's true that there was about half of the party that does not seem to have been ager for eight more years of the Clintons. I don't think it was inevitable that they would congeal around a single candidate, though.

Posted by John | May 26, 2008 1:26 PM