Throw Out the Rove-era Election Map For November

An Obama-McCain general election match-up would ensure that the electoral map we are accustomed to changes; both candidates appeal to states traditionally abandoned by their respective parties, but they are also both dangerously weak among groups previous nominees have carried more easily. Clinton could also transform the map, as she would put in play states that Kerry had given up while having to counter McCain's atypical appeal to blue-leaning independents.

In fact, the conventional wisdom of how the two candidates' strategies differ seems set for the time being: Obama would rely less on states like Ohio and Florida in which he looks to have more difficulty than Clinton and choose a less conventional path to the White House that goes through states like Colorado, Virginia and... the Mountain West, places in which Clinton is much less competitive.

This is of course just a rough sketch that the coming months will allow us to refine; but there is already plenty of evidence of how different the two electoral coalitions that Obama and Clinton are amassing are. Against McCain, Obama is typically stronger among independents and African-Americans, just as in the primaries. Meanwhile, Clinton's general election strength are derived from an edge among blue-collar voters, here again a repeat of her match-up against Obama. Gallup came out with a fascinating study today showing how Clinton and Obama's general election coalitions are almost unbelievably the opposite of one another:

• The aggregate of Gallup's tracking poll from March 31st and April 6th shows that McCain leads Obama among voters with no college education (46% to 40%). McCain's lead evaporates among voters with any college education, including a 52% to 42% lead for Obama among voters with a postgraduate education.

• Clinton, meanwhile, performs in exactly the opposite way: Clinton leads among voters with no college education (48% to 43%) but trails among voters with any college education, including a 10% deficit among four-year college graduates and a 3% deficit among voters with a postgraduate education.
  

Given these dramatic differences, it is hardly surprising that Obama and Clinton are working on different electoral maps, and that the 2008 general election could throw the Bush-Rove map of the past 2 cycles right out the window. Today's wave of general election polls confirms that we will have to pay attention to states that are generally forgotten in general elections:

• First, a Marist poll of New York shows John McCain not only competitive but actually edging out Obama 48% to 46%. Clinton leads 48% to 46%. In the poll's least interesting but most discussed follow-up, a McCain/Rice ticket would lead both a Clinton/Obama and an Obama/Clinton ticket.

It is hard to know what to make of this poll for the simple fact that it is a complete outlier relatively to all the New York polls we have seen this year. This is not to say that McCain will not make blue states competitive, as there is plenty of polls that suggest Connecticut and New Jersey will be very competitive with McCain on the ballot. But looking at the past few New York polls, there simply is no sign of much vulnerability on the part of either Democrat (Obama leads McCain by 13% and 21% in the past two polls), so we will have to wait for other polls to confirm Marist's finding.

We also got a wave of general election releases from Rasmussen:

• In Ohio, McCain is leading both Democrats comfortably, 47% to 40% against Obama and 47% to 42% against Clinton.


• In New Mexico, Obama leads McCain 45% to 42% while McCain is ahead of Clinton 46% to 43%. In late February, McCain tied Obama and led Clinton by 12%.


• The first surprising results come from Alaska, where McCain only leads Obama 48% to 43% while trouncing Clinton 57% to 32%. Clinton's favorability rating is just 35% far behind McCain (63) and Obama (55).


• Just as surprising are Montana's numbers: McCain here again only leads Obama 48% to 43%. He is further ahead of Clinton, 54% to 38%.

Both Alaska and Montana are staunchly Republican states where Obama is vastly overperforming the typical Democratic candidates. Note that these states are conservative in a very different manner than in the deep South and its history of racial conflict; the relative absense of racial polarization in the Mountain West makes this region the testing ground of Obama's attempt at changing the electoral map.

Note also that there is a precedent for such numbers in other polls: SUSA's 50-state poll project in early March tested McCain-Obama match-ups in both Alaksa and Montana and found McCain ahead by 5% and 9% respectively. Obama was competitive in many Western states -- and even led McCain in North Dakota! Most of these states are worth only 3 electoral votes, but the last thing McCain wants is to have to play defense in so many small states.

Relatively to the numbers from MT and AK, of course, Ohio's numbers have to be very disappointing for Democrats. This state was supposed to be a disaster zone for Republicans since 2004 and Democrats were confident that it would be much easier for them to pick it up this time. Democrats do not necessarily need Ohio to get to the White House, but the fact that McCain is consistently strong in the state has got to be a painful blow.

This article is cross-posted on the author's blog, Campaign Diaries.

Comments

[ClareP]

You make some good points re the numbers. But what justifies you in assuming that Obama's lead among college & postgraduate educated voters is "personali­ty-driven" rather than issues & character driven? Honestly, this is a much worse piece of blatant bias that the ones you complain about. Also, "college-educated voters" are a large demographic that goes far beyond current college students (including considerable numbers of well-educated middle-aged people). Whatever you might want to assume about the youth vote, there is no getting around the fact that Obama's lead among the educated (across the board) suggests that he is preferred by more thoughtful & informed voters. Period. As a post-graduate educated middle-aged woman who is well-informed and issue-driven, I increasingly think I could never support Hillary. That has nothing to do with personality (though it does have something to do with integrity, which, as far as I am concerned, is a very different matter).

[yareallygotmegoin]

This is going to be a very intersting election. Unfortunately, it looks like it will shape up as a very close one, again. If thats the case, the Repubs will sucessfully steal it again as they have had much practice in doing so. The quesion is which state will be the battle ground state in which the previous tactics will be exercised. Probabably some California "inland empire" area. Obama has a clear advantage over Clinton in his grassroots mobilization efforts. This is showing up very strongly right now in Fayette County, Lexington KY. Also Obama has very good support with the young Dem leaders in this area. Of course Fayette County is probably the most highly educated county in the state. I worked the Kerry side of the election last time. I can tell you right now, there is a big positive difference in the number of young people being involved in this election. I predict that the youth vote will probably have an enormous influence on the campaign even if the Repubs manage to steal a close one.

[efranklin]

Note that these polls do not properly weigh in the huge number of young voters that Obama could turnout in November. That is the factor that will landslide things in favor of Democrats if Obama is the nominee. Also, we are seven months away from the general election. Look at the inroads Obama makes in just a few weeks, e.g., 15+ points in Pennsylvania. Things will look very different in a few months.

[Syco]

Why???????????

[elleard]

I love your discrepencies of language: "only leads Obama 48% to 43%" in Alaska, versus "comfortably leads ... 47% to 42% against Clinton" in Montana. A 5% margin is a 5% margin. Clinton can close the gap in Montana the same that Obama can close the gap in Alaska, and you're selectively not acknowledging that.

And let's not forget to point out an important gain for Clinton in the general: "McCain is ahead of Clinton 46% to 43%. In late February, McCain ... led Clinton by 12%." Obama's gain is by fewer points.

She's certainly not doing well - yet - by anyone's standards. But give Clinton the same level of credit for her close numbers as you give Obama for his close numbers.

It's really frustrating that the college educated voter base is so personality-driven. Most young college students love rich rhetoric. Not most of us who graduated from MIT, though. Liberal arts students crave deep philosophical analyses, but scientists crave results...

These polls are all interesting, though. How many Democrats go to the polls and with some level of dishonesty say they'd vote for McCain over the current rival of their favorite Democratic candidate? Why is no one asking that question? The polls will rapidly transform after the nomination is made and the Democrats on the losing candidate's side stop trying to skew them to make the nominee look worse. I'd put down money that the map will turn a lot bluer, whoever wins the nomination, after August.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Huzzah.

[ClareP]

sorry- that last was a reply to elleard-- the "reply" button didn't work

[adzeman]

Head to heads this time at the campaign cycle are curiosities. Remember how many losers had double digit leads at this time in other cycles?
McCain is a poor campaigner. He is old, and no matter how fit he is it is a fit relative to being 72. He has very weak positions in almost every important issue. And his one strength experience can be blown up by a college class strategy. Not to mention the massive negatives the GOP has right now.
His only chance to win would be the same way he got the nod from the GOP, his opponent melting down.
So the media will pretend there is a horse race, but when either of the dems start working nationally, we will be looking at something like the Bob Dole beatdown.

[whillice]

Just remember this rule about polls and polling:

When they calculate the margin of error, remember that they do it at, generally, the "95% confidence interval." This means that if you have 100 polls and 100 poll questions, 5 of the answers will be outside the margin of error, possibly even giving false conclusions.

Polling is an approximation, not truth. You read 10 polls all telling you the same thing, it's probably true. You read one that gives you something else..... you might discount it. Plus, not knowing the sample of this poll, it makes it hard to determine-- what if the sample got more people from Long Island and upstate or more people from any ethnic subset?

Plus, the Marist Poll also asked about a hypothetical Rice as VP idea, which could sway everything incredibly. When asked to deal with a new hypothetical that has not been discussed before, people will tend to be more positive to this new information and say "yes" to it over options that are already old news. In the final calculus, no one ever votes based on who the vice president is at the aggregate level.

The new interest created by the idea of Rice as VP along with increased antipathy towards both Clinton and Obama equal a "bump" in this poll that is probably not reliable.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Gawd, this is ominous:

"Democrats do not necessarily need Ohio to get to the White House, but the fact that McCain is consistently strong in the state has got to be a painful blow."

How many Presidents have made it without Ohio? Don't ask.

What is WRONG with the rust belt voters? Nothing that negative campaigning can't make worse.

[colingav]

oups colors are screwed up on this map, Blues are reps, Red dems!

[colingav]

OK so what this article isn´t saying is that we´re going back to a 1992 general election map where Clinton didn´t win Pa or OH.
And so we can conclude that the resemblances between the two are growing, same age, same youth driven campaign and same states won.
When is Bill going to drop his wife.
Check: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&f=0

[Patriot0259]

Central PA can be beat. Did it go for Rendell? One has to wonder if "intellifem" would have advised Obama to ignore central PA...since he can't sincerely be a bowler. That's brilliant.

[intellifem]

As a resident of central PA, I can tell you that PA is going to go solidly for Hillary. BIG margin. Obama's slick style and speeches are not trusted here. The bowling episode was a disaster; small-town Pennsylvanians may be working class but they're not stupid. They can spot a phony a mile away and Obama's beer-sipping, chili dog eating escapades with Sen Casey were seen as insincere.

[BrooklynLager]

Central PA isn't in play. It always goes Republican in the fall, and for the incumbent (Clinton) in a primary.

[memoryaid]

Bitter much? I think that Penn voters are smarter too, smart enough to see a liar and a phoney who pretends to be poor but gets money from union-busting governments and the Saudis.

She has no respect for the troops (see her joking about being shot at - so funny, right?), and no respect for the working class. She'll tell you what you want to hear, and leave you hanging in the wind, just like she did in NY.

[cherrycola]

Combining the results of all of the polls I've seen, I'd say that the state of Pennsylvania appears to be. . . a toss-up! Every single poll offers different numbers!

Should be interesting. . .

Have fun, Pennsylvanians!