Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Betting On Obama's New Map
Still recovering from months of delegate calculations, proportional allocations, even-and-odd delegate districts and Excel spreadsheets, the Obama campaign is now turning to an altogether different sort of calculation: the electoral college. Here, there is no proportionality as it is (almost) all winner-take-all. And there is less of an opportunity to change the message depending on which states votes, since they all vote at the same time.
As I have been exploring in recent weeks, Obama's electoral map differs from that of Al Gore and John Kerry, which placed heavy emphasis on Eastern states in general, and Ohio and Florida in particular. Hillary Clinton would have relied on a similar map, and polls suggested that she was in a position to be more successful than her predecessors in both these states. But there is ample evidence that states might not be Obama's safest bets and that he should look elsewhere for his top-tier opportunities.
Naturally, Obama will have enough resources that he will compete in all states in which he could have a chance. The same could not be said of Kerry and Gore, and this is the Democrats' main advantage this election year. Gore, for instance, sacrificed Ohio; Kerry gave up on places like Missouri and focused on Ohio. But it would not be correct to conclude that Obama will not have to prioritize an electoral map. For one, he has limited time and he will have to choose the combination of states that he believes will get him to 270. Second, the way in which he frames his messages will have to be targeted at specific constituencies: Will Obama aim at capturing working-class white voters or more upscale independent-minded voters? Trying to keep a balance in the themes that are emphasized can end up satisfying no one. As long as he does not need a majority of both to win the election, Obama could be better-advised to pick a path and largely stick to it.
Finally, there is the very simple problem that, no matter how much Obama is campaigning there, Appalachia is not warming up to him at all. Obama outpsent Clinton in Ohio, in Pennsylvania and in North Carolina. By the time Kentucky and West Virginia voted, the nomination's competitive stage had long been over. Yet, Obama got trounced in all the Appalachian counties in these states -- including in the all-important states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Obama can spend as much money in WV and KY as he wants, but both states look to be as safe as it gets for John McCain. A new Rasmussen poll of Kentucky released yesterday shows Clinton leading McCain 51% to 42% in this red state (confirming that the Kentucky GOP is in bad shape, which we started seeing in the fall) but Obama is crushed 57% to 32%! That's a huge differential between the two Democrats. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Obama will have to make up in urban and suburban areas his weakness in rural counties.
While this does not mean that Obama will give up on OH and PA -- he certainly needs the latter if he wants to get to the White House and he certainly has the potential to boost Democratic turnout and appeal to Republican-voting upscale voters in places like Philadelphia or the Ohio suburbs -- it does suggest that Obama will make an effort to turn to the Mountain West and replace the emphasis on the East and the Midwest with an all-out effort in Colorado (9 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and Nevada (5 electoral votes). With all the Kerry states, these 19 electoral votes would get Obama to an electoral tie; add Iowa, the only 2004 Bush state that polls now suggest is leaning Democratic, and it is an electoral majority for the Illinois Senator.
Furthermore, Obama seeks to replace the Florida-Ohio strategy (which could lead to a more disastrous result this year than in cycles past) by replacing their 47 electoral votes with those of states that have not been in the map at all in past cycles, states like Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska and perhaps even an electoral vote in Nebraska! Note that polls do not show that Obama would be stronger than Clinton in North Carolina, but it seems safe to say that he will make a bigger play for that state than she would have.
In brief, Obama's changing the map is due to his relative weakness in the states that past Democratic nominees have put the emphasis on and his relative strength in places which they gave up on.
What makes the 2008 election particularly unpredictable is that McCain also changes the electoral map for Republicans, as his strengths and weaknesses are different from those of Bush
and those other Republicans would have brought to the table. Unlike his former nomination rivals, McCain can keep the Hispanic vote competitive and thus contest the 3 Western states (CO, NV and NM). Unlike Republicans who would have had more difficulty differentiating themselves from Bush, McCain can hope to convince independents who have given up on the GOP to still vote for him, allowing him to compete for independents in places like New Hampshire, upstate Virginia, Oregon and Washington.
And unlike Bush's strategy of turning out the base by polarizing the electorate, the trust McCain inspires among moderate Democrats could be higher than the one among conservative Republicans, which explains why McCain is confident that it can take advantage of Obama's weakness with blue-collar votes in the must-win Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. He just started airing ads in those two states, focused on economic issues. Polls have shown McCain to be surprisingly competitive in Michigan in particular, making it that much more important for Democrats to find a resolution to the delegate mess.
In other words, Obama and McCain both believe that their strengths make it imperative for them to focus on the Mountain West and on states like Virginia and New Hampshire; meanwhile, McCain will make sure to put in play Michigan and Pennsylvania because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and Obama will attempt a push in the deep South because to see whether he can boost black turnout. All of this at the expense of Florida and Ohio. Read more at Daniel Nichanian's blog, Campaign Diaries.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The GOP is losing in the reddest of red districts in the reddest of red states like Mississippi and Louisiana.
This is happening even when they send in their big guns like Cheney to help the GOP candidate.
I predict that the old electoral map of America-red in the middle with a few blue states on the coasts and near Chicago-is over.
There's gonna be a bunch of states that traditionally go red, go blue this time.
Get with the times or be left behind.
Obama wins the General Election - John McCain loses the General Election - Hillary has NO power - she already lost. the Clintons have always caused troubles for folks who refuse to sweep them out of the way...the rest of us are happy going forward - cleaning up the mess from Clintons and Bushes and working with the world.
In the Electoral Votes ,Either democratic candidate CAN beat McCain.There's a difference when you put Obama against McCain,as there is when Hillary is put against McCain. Americans are ready fo a drastic change in the White House .Whichever dem wins the nomination will change the electoral voteing map.I think we may very well have a democrat as the next president.This is the perfect time for a democrat to win .We probably won't know just how corrupted the Bush /Cheny white house has been untill documents are released later on. And now we have the Iraqis wanting to back out of repaying money they owe this country and other countries.The war is what is going to cost the republicans the white house.
Hillary's manipulation of ignorance is offensive to me, and no doubt is also to most people who pay attention to politics and understand the process. Primaries and general elections are NOT THE SAME. Primaries are merely NOMINATING contests. The parties and their state and national organizations make the rules. NO ONE is disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote in a primary; it is only in the general election that this is possible. If the Superdelegates nominate Clinton over the will if the elected delegates, the Democratic Party will lose not only in November, but it is likely to be destroyed as well. We've had too much manipulation of ignorance during the past eight years. For a Democrat to adopt this Republican trademark is shameful.
Any poll showing Hillary doing well against McCain is BS. They do not understand the Clinton "backfire". Clinton will bring so many Republicans out it will like ants at a picnic. I don't think she can win against McCain as long as she's married to Bill....
This is true. I'm sounding like a broken record here, but: I have 6 conservative friends -- all but 1 of them intends to vote Barr in the general, because they hate McCain and regard his nomination as a stab in the back. They want Obama to win, with a big Barr turnout, to send the message to the GOP that they will not be taken for granted.
However, if Clinton had gotten the nomination, they would've ALL voted McCain. They may be outraged by McCain, but Republicans would vote for Satan, with Stalin and Hitler's gay love-child as VP, if it kept the Clintons out of the White House.
Wes Clark - the latest in the trend of otherwise sane logical intelligent people tossing their reputation under the bus for their loyalty to their Dear Leader.
this is starting to remind me of the Bush years.
If the "sleeze Queen" and her "Royal Court"- are allowed to steal this nomination or make it difficult for Obama to win....or puts one of her "Royal Court" cronies on the ticket- we will go McCain.
And take your ball and go home, and sit sulking in your room with the door closed?
That's an excellent way to show unity.
Really, DC Mata. Couldn't you at least threaten to vote for Nader? Anyone who's willing to vote for McCain is no Democrat and no progressive.
There's no way obama supporters are voting for McCain. They may not vote for Clinton, but they're not going to McCain.
Clinton and her supporters are strong and have an unfair hold on the party.
They are unwilling to let the influence/power they have go.
Wesley Clark, a man we respected, until tonight's appearance on MSNBC.
He argues if you want a Democracy- all votes must count form FL. & Mi.- how fair is that?
Votes from an illegal election- that kept voters away, because they were told it didn't count- Clinton said so!!! Isn't this a third world ploy- to keep the votes away?
The failure of efforts to have another election in these states- Obama had nothing to do with!!
When these represenatives tell us that- they are lying!!
Our feelings for Bush and "the Queen of Sleezy"- are the same!!
Our Country is not for us- only for a few powerful people.
Will not vote for Obama- if he has a Clinton "sleeze bag" running with him- then, it would NOT mean change.
oh thank you!! i was thinkin d same thing, that i jus lost a huge amount of respect for wes clark tonight..how could he even suggest that not seating fl and mi to clintons taste wld be undemocratic and they would take it all the way to the convention??
even dan had to laugh when he was like, oh even though obama wasnt even on the ballot in michigan..?
"All votes from MI must count." Since when does this country have a traditon of taking seriously a Soviet style election with only one name on the ballot. I guess that is the only way Hillary can win, Soviet style.
So you would trade in some old blue states for some old red states, to win? Develop new abandons, with some new panderings? If you can't keep faith with your old bases, you're wasting time on planning your victory party.
How arrogant, to say, only those states count??
We live in Washington State, voting Dem in over 50 years- we are not old base??
We do agree, there will be no Democratic win this time- the base is NOT excited, it is angry!!
"...surprisingly, NJ recognize potential areas of strength for McCain."
I am a NJ resident. Some local polls suggest that Obama leads by as much as 24% over McCain. NJ will not be a battleground state. Obama will easily carry it.
I too live in NJ and agree. There is NO way McCain or any Repubican will win this state. Bush is not just unpopular here, he and everything he stands for is down right hated. Simply being a republican is enough for you to get killed in an election here, especially these days. The Democratic machine here (which simply handed the state to Hillary Clinton, by the way) is ALL powerful now and there is practically no republican organization here anymore. If McCain and the repubs wants to waste time and money in NJ, let them have at it.
Agreed. NO WAY McCain wins NJ. Every 4 years the media trots this fallacy out and NJ ends up just as blue as ever. I don't think people realize how hated Bush and everything he stands for is hated in this state. Just being a repub is enough for McCain to get spanked here. The Democratic machine in NJ is ALL powerful these days and the republican party barely has an organization here, compared to the Democrats. McCain will be drubbed here, especially once people come to know hie real record and how close he is to Bush. If him the the repubs want to waste their money and resources in NJ, they can have at it. Trust me though, their money and time would be better spent elsewhere.
"...meanwhile, McCain will make sure to put in play Michigan and Pennsylvania because of his appeal to conservative Democrats..."
If by "conservative Democrats" you mean racist Democrats then, yes, I agree with your statement. If you mean conservatives who happen to be Democrats then you must be smoking something. Let us know whether you are speaking in code next time, OK?
I think the map/math will change when Hillary drops out of the race; when hopefuls and loyalists let go. Isn't it kind of silly to even hypothesize at this point, when the Dems still have to choose between two candidate? It makes for interesting reading, but doesn't strike me as realistic or practical at this point.
Thank you for your dispassionate analysis. The logical thing is for Obama to take Clinton as his VP. I fear the "let's lose another election with a clear conscience" wing of the Democratic Party will veto that, condemning the nation and the world to 8 more years of Republican catastrophes.
actually, the logical thing is for obama to drop out and get some experience.
Experience hasn't worked in Washington!!!
If you are for experience...McCains your man.
If you want a NEW perspective Obama is it.
If you want a spoiler- Clintons your woman.
Experience at what? Lying to you about a war? Selling this country from underneath us? Crashing the value of our currency? All of these things were brought to you by those with experience?
Part I:
I do not find your remark logical at all.
First, the only EXECUTIVE experience amongst the three is the vicarious experience of Mrs. Clinton while her husband was president.
Second, executive experience shows little correlation to performance in office. Some exceptional presidents had little experience (Kennedy, Lincoln, et. al.); some disastrous presidents had one or two terms of gubernatorial experience (the current one springs to mind, as does Carter).
What DOES seem to bring success is the ability to lead, and communication skills are key to leadership. Consider FDR, JFK, and Reagan. While I consider the goals at which Reagan succeeded very bad policy, he, JFK, and FDR were able to accomplish large parts of their goals, due in great part to their scintillating speaking skills and positive messages. I see Mr. Obama's communication talents on a par with any of these men (witness an audience of 76,000 in Portland). In fact, he inspires people -- no small accomplishment in a land as politically jaded as the US.
Part II:
Other qualities evident in Mr. Obama are foresight, intelligence, and the ability to plan and prepare. He foresaw an opportunity in 2008 and was prepared ahead of time to make the best of that opportunity. We see now the rewards of his planning in his fundraising success, the numbers of new voters his campaign has registered, and the grassroots organization (in every state!!) he and his staff have built from nothing. How else can one explain his success to this point? Even now, he has begun the groundwork for the general election, despite that the nomination process is not yet complete. He has a solid grasp of the problems facing the society and fairly detailed plans to deal with them, and I trust his intelligence to select an exceptional team to support his presidency and implement an execute those plans. Effective presidents can only succeed with high-quality support. The government is far, far too large for one person to manage on his/her own, and Mr. Obama's refreshing humility will lead him to select appointees matching strengths to weaknesses so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Lastly, why in this cycle do so many people contemplate the withdrawal of the "frontrunner"? Would you give up in the last five yards of the 100-yard dash if you were leading?
No the logical thing would be for Hillary and Hubby to cherish the 8 years they jointly ran the country and let someone else have a try. Lincoln and Kennedy didn't have much experience either and it served them well.
Funny you should mention Kennedy. He had a very antagonistic relationship with Johnson but he was also smart enough, mature enough, and confident enough to select LBJ as his VP. He knew that winning the election was about putting together a winning coalition.
Sista V
I find it quite humerous to see everyone trying to figure what states Sen. Obama needs to be elected President.
Well let me tell you, he will show a run-away early on election night !
I will be completely ecstatic.
What a cleaning crew it will take to get rid of all the lies,, deceit and corruption hiding in the cracks and crevices of the oval office !!!
!And the Bush Family Will Never Be Able To Put It Back Together Again LOL !!!!l
be completely ecstatic !!!hat a house cleaning will happen when the Bush Kingdom Falls and no one will be able to put it back together again !!!!
NO Clinton royalty on an Obama ticket- it would NOT mean change- but, the same old sleezy way of doing things!!!
Obama cannot win with Clinton, IMO. She has too much baggage. Also, would Obama really want to deal with Bill?
That is a HORRIBLE idea. She brings far too many negatives.
Ok here it is .. Obama takes Iowa, Minnesosta, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, and all the traditional blue states. Pennsylvania will stay blue but Ohio and Florida goes red (screw em). The key to an Obama victory is Michigan and Nevada. And watch for a squeeker to take Virginia. Hillary cannot take Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, or even Michigan but she destroys in Florida and Ohio. Over all she is stronger, But she has to sound like a republican, do shots, and pander to pseudo-racist sentiment for those 5 points in appalachia and florida. Ill take Obama and sleep well at night thank you
When the Republicans get done airing her dirty laundry and come out in force, she will lose in a landslide.
Second that..... Those polls showing her competing with McCain are BS. The one single motivator for the Republican base is Clinton. They could run a pet monkey against her and win......by a landslide....
"Hillary Clinton would have relied on a similar map, and polls suggested that she was in a position to be more successful than her predecessors in both these states."
So would Gore & Kerry, if they were running this year. The difference in outlook for a hypothetical Hillary Clinton campaign this year isn't because of the candidate, it's about the incumbant.
This is a new day and everything has changed. I read an article that someone posted about how Obama changed the whole concept of campaign financing. Hillary received more money than previous candidates doing business the old fashion way. BUT Obama raised much more money using a different method - the internet and small donations. This means he's not tapped out. He can keep going to the "well". Hillary has no "well" to speak of. No one has ever raised as much money from as many people- giving small donations - as Obama. He has managed a campaign unlike any in history. It's a new day and just as the old method of raising money has fallen by the wayside so too has the old election map.
Loading comments…
Posted May 28, 2008 | 09:21 AM (EST)