New Horse Race Analysis
Thanks to a self-imposed implosion by McCain in these last two weeks, Barack Obama has risen to what will likely prove to be the pinnacle of his success this election. Don't expect it to last, but it's worth taking a close look at Obama's Electoral College prospects at this snapshot in time. Even though Obama is performing 3-10 points better (depending on which poll you're looking at) than Al Gore or John Kerry were through the home stretch of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns nationally, it's striking that he's not in much better shape in shoring up 270 electoral votes than either of those candidates. In Gore's case, he narrowly led in Florida for the entire fall of 2000, and it was hard to imagine a scenario where he could win Florida but lose the Presidency. John Kerry was essentially tied with Bush in both Ohio and Florida in the fall of 2004, and if either of one those states went to Kerry, it was assured that he would be the 44th President.
But with Obama, most observers still see it as a longshot that either Ohio or Florida will be shaded blue this fall. Racial bias almost guarantees that any "undecided" voter in Ohio will ultimately be a McCain voter, so a "tie" in the polls in Ohio is ultimately misleading. And Florida always votes several points redder on election day than they poll in the weeks leading up to it, so Obama's ties or small deficits in the state even at what we can assume is the strongest week of his campaign ultimately bode poorly for his chances on November 4.
Taking Ohio and Florida off the table would certainly have killed Gore or Kerry in 2000 and 2004, so Obama is lucky that he has turned a couple other high-profile red states purple. The most important is Colorado, which seems like a decent bet to turn blue this year even if the race reverts back to advantage-McCain. Colorado won't get Obama to 270 electoral votes by itself, but together with 2004 red states Iowa and New Mexico, both looking good for Obama this year, it would. That takes us to Virginia, which I'm very skeptical about. The polls are erratic and those showing Obama with a lead strike me as questionable given the demographics of Virginia, fast-changing as they may be. Like Ohio and Florida, I can't see how the math works out for Obama in Virginia, encouraging as it is to watch it change so quickly.
Then of course some deep red states have turned pink this year, most notably North Carolina and Indiana. I was a big fan of Obama's decision to target seven red states that they thought they could flip (well, six of them anyway...Georgia was always a miscalculation), and it's paying dividends by keeping consequential states like Indiana and North Carolina competitive into late September. I have virtually no expectation of seeing Obama win either of these states, but their current competitiveness is part of the reason why he's outperforming Gore and Kerry nationally while still deadlocked with McCain in electoral votes.
Beyond that, and this is a factor scarcely discussed by the pundits, Obama's national poll lead can also be explained by his very strong performance in California. Gore won California by 12 points and Kerry by 10 points. In 2008, even in his weakest poll showings, Obama is winning California by 13 points. The average is closer to 16 points. Couple that with Obama's apparent near-double-digit margin in neighboring Oregon (this is the first time I remember Washington state appearing less blue than Oregon) and it goes a long way towards explaining Obama's better standing nationally than his predecessors, even if it won't do him much good in the Electoral College on November 4. In California's case, it could also prove to just be the latest example of overstating the strength of the Latino vote for Democrats, which certainly was the case in 2004.
Unfortunately for Obama, he still has glaring weaknesses in four blue states that he can't win without, meaning his current standing nationally puts him on no better footing than either Gore or Kerry. None of those blue states are Obama's weaknesses more pronounced than in New Hampshire. Kerry appeared to have a safe lead in New Hampshire on the eve of the 2004 election, but he squeaked it out with a mere one-point victory. Three polls late this week verified that Obama's "lead" in New Hampshire was a statistically insignificant one point. My thinking two weeks ago was that NH was one of the few states where Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket would hurt McCain more than it helps him since they tend to be libertarian conservatives and not social conservatives. Whether it's an enduring affection for Palin or merely and enduring affection for McCain, it's abundantly clear that Obama still has much work to do to shore up New Hampshire.
Obama's remaining three weak blue states are Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. While it appears that Obama has opened up a lead in Michigan, McCain has a couple particularly effective weapons to use on Obama in that state....his loose association with disgraced former Detroit Mayor and current felon Kwame Kilpatrick, and his support for strengthening CAFE standards on automobiles which is fiercely opposed by Detroit automakers. If Obama is to win Pennsylvania, it'll likely require a variation on "the Rendell coalition" (huge margins in suburban Philly that will offset deficits in the rest of the state) as opposed to the Gore and Kerry coalitions since even the Obama campaign sounds gloomy about their prospects in southwestern Pennsylvania outside of the city of Pittsburgh. I'm a little more optimistic about Minnesota, but McCain strikes me as the kind of Republican more likely to be viewed as acceptable to the moderate Republicans in Rochester and the second-ring Minneapolis-St. Paul suburbs that helped lead Gore and Kerry to victory in Minnesota. The closeness of most post-GOP convention polls in Minnesota suggest that McCain currently is winning many of those voters over. If Obama can't get them back, it's trouble.
Obama has a definite path to victory even if this race goes back to a tie, but if the national race reverts to where it was before both conventions (basically split down the middle) as I expect it to, Obama has to perfectly thread a needle to get to 270 electoral votes....holding all of the Kerry states, plus Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado....or possibly Nevada. It's possible, but count me as somebody who sees at least one of the blue states causing us difficulty come election night.
But with Obama, most observers still see it as a longshot that either Ohio or Florida will be shaded blue this fall. Racial bias almost guarantees that any "undecided" voter in Ohio will ultimately be a McCain voter, so a "tie" in the polls in Ohio is ultimately misleading. And Florida always votes several points redder on election day than they poll in the weeks leading up to it, so Obama's ties or small deficits in the state even at what we can assume is the strongest week of his campaign ultimately bode poorly for his chances on November 4.
Taking Ohio and Florida off the table would certainly have killed Gore or Kerry in 2000 and 2004, so Obama is lucky that he has turned a couple other high-profile red states purple. The most important is Colorado, which seems like a decent bet to turn blue this year even if the race reverts back to advantage-McCain. Colorado won't get Obama to 270 electoral votes by itself, but together with 2004 red states Iowa and New Mexico, both looking good for Obama this year, it would. That takes us to Virginia, which I'm very skeptical about. The polls are erratic and those showing Obama with a lead strike me as questionable given the demographics of Virginia, fast-changing as they may be. Like Ohio and Florida, I can't see how the math works out for Obama in Virginia, encouraging as it is to watch it change so quickly.
Then of course some deep red states have turned pink this year, most notably North Carolina and Indiana. I was a big fan of Obama's decision to target seven red states that they thought they could flip (well, six of them anyway...Georgia was always a miscalculation), and it's paying dividends by keeping consequential states like Indiana and North Carolina competitive into late September. I have virtually no expectation of seeing Obama win either of these states, but their current competitiveness is part of the reason why he's outperforming Gore and Kerry nationally while still deadlocked with McCain in electoral votes.
Beyond that, and this is a factor scarcely discussed by the pundits, Obama's national poll lead can also be explained by his very strong performance in California. Gore won California by 12 points and Kerry by 10 points. In 2008, even in his weakest poll showings, Obama is winning California by 13 points. The average is closer to 16 points. Couple that with Obama's apparent near-double-digit margin in neighboring Oregon (this is the first time I remember Washington state appearing less blue than Oregon) and it goes a long way towards explaining Obama's better standing nationally than his predecessors, even if it won't do him much good in the Electoral College on November 4. In California's case, it could also prove to just be the latest example of overstating the strength of the Latino vote for Democrats, which certainly was the case in 2004.
Unfortunately for Obama, he still has glaring weaknesses in four blue states that he can't win without, meaning his current standing nationally puts him on no better footing than either Gore or Kerry. None of those blue states are Obama's weaknesses more pronounced than in New Hampshire. Kerry appeared to have a safe lead in New Hampshire on the eve of the 2004 election, but he squeaked it out with a mere one-point victory. Three polls late this week verified that Obama's "lead" in New Hampshire was a statistically insignificant one point. My thinking two weeks ago was that NH was one of the few states where Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket would hurt McCain more than it helps him since they tend to be libertarian conservatives and not social conservatives. Whether it's an enduring affection for Palin or merely and enduring affection for McCain, it's abundantly clear that Obama still has much work to do to shore up New Hampshire.
Obama's remaining three weak blue states are Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. While it appears that Obama has opened up a lead in Michigan, McCain has a couple particularly effective weapons to use on Obama in that state....his loose association with disgraced former Detroit Mayor and current felon Kwame Kilpatrick, and his support for strengthening CAFE standards on automobiles which is fiercely opposed by Detroit automakers. If Obama is to win Pennsylvania, it'll likely require a variation on "the Rendell coalition" (huge margins in suburban Philly that will offset deficits in the rest of the state) as opposed to the Gore and Kerry coalitions since even the Obama campaign sounds gloomy about their prospects in southwestern Pennsylvania outside of the city of Pittsburgh. I'm a little more optimistic about Minnesota, but McCain strikes me as the kind of Republican more likely to be viewed as acceptable to the moderate Republicans in Rochester and the second-ring Minneapolis-St. Paul suburbs that helped lead Gore and Kerry to victory in Minnesota. The closeness of most post-GOP convention polls in Minnesota suggest that McCain currently is winning many of those voters over. If Obama can't get them back, it's trouble.
Obama has a definite path to victory even if this race goes back to a tie, but if the national race reverts to where it was before both conventions (basically split down the middle) as I expect it to, Obama has to perfectly thread a needle to get to 270 electoral votes....holding all of the Kerry states, plus Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado....or possibly Nevada. It's possible, but count me as somebody who sees at least one of the blue states causing us difficulty come election night.
posted by Mark at 5:46 PM
4 Comments:
One state that could be a trouble spot in the final stretch is Colorado. There have been a few elections where that state seemed to go from leaning Democratic to Republican in the last few days. If you remember the 2002 Senate race, for much of October of that year, Democrat Tom Strickland either led or was tied with Wayne Allard but ended up losing by five points. The same happened in 1996 where Bill Clinton led Dole by double digits in the state up until the last week and Dole won the state narrowly. However, in 2004, the polls seemed to be right on.
I have a really hard time seeing Minnesota go red in a close Presidential race. I would think Wisconsin would certainly go first, as the result was a cliffhanger there in both 2000 and 2004.
One state to watch is Pennsylvania. I am hearing that Obama is having trouble in the white, working class areas in Northeastern Philadelphia, which is generally the southern half of PA-13 and also in Bucks county.
Although Obama's win in California is a foregone conclusion, I am still interested in tracking the results there and seeing how close they are to the actual polls. The most recent Field Poll, California's most reliable pollster, has Obama up 52-36. McCain's choosing Palin shored up the conservative base, while Obama's choosing Biden shored up independent support. Hispanics made up 17% of the poll's sample, which is about on par with how they turn out on Election Day, and right now they favor Obama-Biden 61-22.
In 2004, according to the exit polls, Hispanics made up about 22% of voters in California and they preferred Kerry 63-32. Polls leading up to the election had Kerry up by margins from the high single digits to the low double digits, which was about on par with the 10% win on Election Night. I couldn't find demographic breakdowns of those polls, so I don't know how the Hispanic samples were like.
As for white voters in California, they tend to be more Democratic than in the nation at large, and most of those that are conservative are more concerned about their money (and of those in the Southland, illegal immigration) than social or race issues. Bush only barely won California whites, 51-47, and Obama won the white vote in the primary. The recent Field Poll even has him winning the white vote, albeit 46-42. I know that doesn't necessarily mean Obama will win the white vote in California, but I think he will do better than Kerry barring a major implosion. And of course Obama doesn't have to worry about the black or Asian vote.
Are you kidding? Sarah Palin is the ultimate libertarian Republican. She's one of the top elected libertarians in the Nation, along with Idaho's Gov. Butch Otter, and SC's Gov. Mark Sanford.
She's attended Libertarian Party meetings, she received the endorsement of the Libertarian Party in 2006, and she's been called a "libertarian" by the media and politicos in Alaska for years.
She's a natural for libertarian New Hampshire.
Notice how Libertarian Bob Barr's poll numbers have dropped in NH from a high of 11% over the summer, to 2% since Palin has been picked?
I think you need to learn a little bit more about Sarah Palin's background. If you think she's a social conservative you are sadly mistaken.
Mr. Phips, your point is well taken on the 2002 Colorado Senate race, but I sense the tide has turned substantially in Colorado since then, and certainly since 1996. I'm not particularly concerned about the state right now. If Obama isn't winning Colorado, he's lost anyway.
In theory, Minnesota should be bluer than Wisconsin, but there's more of a centrist independent vote in Minnesota than Wisconsin, meaning a higher number of voters that need to be won over to pull off a majority.
PA-13 is in suburban Philadelphia. Are you sure you weren't talking about PA-11 or PA-15? Because if Obama's losing PA-13, he'll lose the state by 10 points.
sara, no sooner than I post this do two new California polls come out showing Obama with a 10-point lead. Seems kind of bizarre that even as the rest of the country begins to trend Obama that California would migrate towards McCain, however irrelevantly. Again, I submit California is a near-impossible state to poll given the questionable immigration status of so much of its Latino population.
eric, Sarah Palin the ultimate libertarian Republican? How do you figure? Her evangelical street cred makes George Bush look like an amateur. What specifically are the libertarian bona fides you are referencing? Pressuring the local librarian to remove books from the Wasilla library that she disapproved of? Inserting abortion and gay marriage as wedge issues in her first mayoral run in order to knock off a secular Republican incumbent? Wishing to criminalize abortion? Being the Governor of Alaska is not by itself enough to qualify a candidate as libertarian...at least in my view.
Post a Comment
<< Home