We've heard it said that "All politics is local." This means that solving problems of real people back home marks the difference between a good politician and a putz. That's true once in office, but while you're still a candidate all politics is -- believe it -- arithmetic.
The direct popular vote of the people does not decide the presidency. The "Electoral College" does, and both Obama and Clinton supporters better make the case for winning it now. The rules of engagement are easy:
The general election, in truth, is a series of 50 separate contests (and Washington D.C.). The number of electoral votes in each state is simply the total of how many congressional districts they've got plus their two U.S. senators. California, the big kahuna, has 55 electoral votes (53 plus 2); low-population states with only one congressional district, like Vermont or Wyoming, have just 3 electoral votes. States decide how to award them. In 48 states, if you lead in their popular vote you get all their electoral votes, winner-take-all. Only Maine and Nebraska do it differently. It takes 270 to become el presidente.
That's the game.
Most states won't be "in play" on election day. Nobody will sweat New York, so that's 31 electoral votes to the Democrat. Ditto California, probably. Ruby red Texas hasn't gone blue since Jimmy Carter in '76, so we can put its 34 votes in the John McCain column. Dozens of states today fit this pre-cast mold.
Victory, therefore, comes down to about 20 so-called "swing states" that can go either way. New Mexico has swung in recent presidential elections, but has just 5 votes. The winner will need plenty of these smaller electoral states in their tote bag, but obviously the swing states that matter most are the ones with lots of electoral votes because the only goal is to get to 270.
Let's take four of the biggest and always crucial swingers: Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20) and Michigan (17). A Democrat can't lose three of these four and expect to host a housewarming in the nation's capital next January 20.
Across the country, a record 27 million Democrats have participated so far, and Obama and Clinton are currently separated by a stunning 2%, 700,000 votes. The method of dividing pledged delegates from each state gives him a lead of around 160, but neither candidate can get to the required total of 2,024 before the convention. In fact, she'd have the lead in pledged delegates if it were winner-take-all like November. With such a tight race, what have Democratic voters in these four important states said about this?
Clinton won the popular vote in Florida by 300,000 votes and Ohio by 237,000. Of the two other states, she won Michigan without Obama's name on the ballot, and Pennsylvania doesn't vote until April 22. She expects to win it by 200,000 or more. We'll see.
Results from Michigan and Florida (almost 10% of America's Democrats) were tossed out because their legislatures scheduled primaries on unapproved dates, and Obama's team has aggressively resisted do-overs. Interestingly, the national Republicans punished their state parties for this crime by docking only half the delegates, and McCain, Giuliani et al competed and moved on with no lingering mess, killing off Rudy in the process.
Why Howard Dean and the DNC behaved like an overly stern school teacher is one of life's mysteries, but there are more pressing questions.
Will Obama be able to "broaden the map" in November by putting some states in play that are usually Republican? If so, which ones, and what's their electoral total? If he succeeds in doing so while simultaneously losing some big electoral swing states, like Pennsylvania, does this get him to the needed 270?
The Keystone State squarely frames the issue: It re-elected Bill Clinton by 10% in '96, went for Gore by 5% four years later, and Kerry by only 1.5% in '04. See the pattern? If Obama does poorly there among Democrats in the spring primary, are its 21 electoral votes open to McCain's appeal next fall? Ohio? Florida?
Do most Clinton supporters return in November if she's not on the ballot? Sure, as do most Obama supporters if he's not. Most people everywhere vote for their party nominee in November regardless of whom they supported in the primaries, or else the other side would surely win.
Of course, there will be some disaffected Democrats, regardless of who loses the nomination. It's a mistake, but maybe they'll stay home, or maybe they'll be attracted to McCain if he turns back to the middle and reclaims his maverick persona. He'd gladly jettison religious Right voters if it means adding working class moderates and independents. Hell, the religious Right never liked him anyway, and their concerns (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) are off the table these days.
Long about September, he might even see a quicker way out of Iraq than his "100 year" plan.
Democrats need to consider the electoral map, and sooner rather than later. "Let's wait and see how it looks after Labor Day" won't cut it. We can't allow a third Bush term in McCain. Too much is at stake, from the economy to war and peace to Supreme Court appointments.
Here's the list of the states and their electoral votes, from Project VoteSmart. Grab your calculator, Democrats, and get busy!