Barack Obama: Popular Vote Landslide, Electoral College Loser?

On Sunday mornings, I have the great joy and honor of appearing on Mario Solis Marich's show on KTALK in Los Angeles. It works out fine for me because while it's 7:15 out west, in cold Boston, it's a more appropriate 10:15.

Yesterday, we broached what I think will be the most interesting issue of the fall, whether Obamania will sweep Barack to a huge popular vote victory but another narrow defeat in the Electoral College.

Before everyone starts screaming foul, this same scenario is true, to an extent, for Senator Clinton but I don't think her margins would be as large in some of the coastal states - meaning the chance of an overwhelming victory in popular vote and crushing loss in the Electoral College is lower.

Here are the facts that set it up. And let me be clear - my purpose of this post is when our nominee is decided, we all have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us, collectively, to have A CHANCE in November. Hear me out, my friends, hear me out.

First, click here a second and look at the Electoral College map from 2004 and 2000. All the folks arguing about the Superdelegates now? Hah, wait till they start focusing on this little issue. We live in a country with the right to vote and a democracy but as the Electoral College proves - it is not a pure democracy - it is better described as a representative democracy.

The simple core fact is that John Kerry lost to George Bush by 34 electoral college votes so to win, Barack Obama has to swing 18 votes his way. Al Gore, of course, won the popular vote but lost the election.

Barack Obama will win California and New York and all the blue coastal states by huge margins - he will be millions of votes ahead on the basis of New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts alone. Barack could be as much as 5,000,000 votes ahead out of those four states and what will prevent it from being even larger is minimum focus on those states by the nominee in the fall. But remember, you win by one, you win by a million, you still are limited in your electoral college votes.

He will win these states by margins that may well give him a popular vote victory. He also will get more votes in states where Kerry was non-existent, like Alabama, but he won't win those states, or their Electoral College votes.

So if Obama wins the popular vote by five or ten million votes, he wins the White House right? Well, no. Because he hasn't picked up the needed 18 Electoral College votes.

If the Republican duo is McCain-Romney or McCain-Huckabee with Romney hustling it for a cabinet post, there are two real problem states - one is New Hampshire where McCain is very strong, and Obama lost to Hillary. Romney would add another layer of problem here for us, he considers it one of his many home states and also remember: Gore lost New Hampshire to Bush.

New Hampshire appears to be more blue than it used to be, but it has not one but two Republican Senators, so I think it could go red this year.

So if New Hampshire flips back red, Obama can win the oh-so-precious Ohio and still not be President. He has to win some other states. Could he bring Iowa or New Mexico back to the Democrats? States Gore won that Kerry lost? Well within the realm of possibility. Especially New Mexico with a Bill Richardson on the ticket.

In fact, I see Bill Richardson as potentially being key to the White House. He could swing New Mexico, assist greatly in other states with sizable Latino populations and he would bring international expertise and real experience to the ticket. (Disclosure: I was New Media Consultant to the Governor's campaign this past fall.)

Before we go on more, I see another issue looming - and in 2004, everyone looked back to Florida and the key state was Ohio. Now, everyone is looking at Ohio and I think the key state is Michigan.

Especially if it is McCain-Romney, will the Democrats hold Michigan? A state in terrible financial shape with leading Democrats. The state where Romney announced? It could be problematic.

Oh, and by the way, Michigan just happens to be the state where Obama pulled his name off and has not campaigned and whose delegates may not be seated at the convention, not exactly how you empower people to help you out.

If New Hampshire and Michigan go red, we are in trouble. If they stay blue, let's look at the best chance scenario - what single state can Obama win and make up Kerry's deficit? Ohio, yes, a definite possibility but far from a sure thing. In 2004, the Kerry Campaign and DNC and Democratic Groups threw tens of millions of dollars and man hours at Florida, and went backwards when compared to Gore in 2004.

Texas, not much chance.

Indiana, not much chance.

Florida, hard to think we have a real chance right now. (And like Michigan, there is the little issue of the DNC dismissing their delegates.)

Hmm, what if he wins both Iowa and New Mexico but not Ohio? He's still not President.

What if he wins Iowa, and New Mexico and Nevada? If my math skills are correct, then it's a tie. Seriously, an electoral college tie which makes winning the Senate hands down pretty important because that's where they break the tie.

There are two huge factors that will make the situation more fluid than I, or anyone else doing early guessing, will talk about right now.

One is Iraq.

A calm fall and some timely dog wagging (when was the last time the terror alert network went red? I'm betting soon) and McCain looks very very good on Iraq. He will have support of groups like Freedom's Watch and the man who still has the pulpit, George Bush.

The second is when the right turns its guns on Barack. He has been allowed to coast so far, he hasn't had any real shots come his way, but you see the battlelines forming. They will pound him for his 'rhetoric' and for the 'plagiarism' charge. They will pound him on Rezko and on his inexperience. They will mock and belittle him for months.

It won't make a difference on the coasts but it will hold the middle of the country red.

It will make it hard to flip states and easy to lose Michigan and New Hampshire.

I remember after 2004, everyone kept asking, 'how did you guys lose?" We lost because they managed to destroy an authentic war hero's record and glorify the toy soldier. We lost because in some counties in the middle of the country, 85% of the people voted for Bush.

Barack will inspire and unite the coasts. I can clearly see the path to a huge popular vote victory.

The path to victory on the Electoral College, I fear, is a little cloudy right now.

Comments

[S1m0n]

The democrats will never have a political climate as favorable to them as this again in your lifetime. All the macroevents are running their way, and their putative nominee is one of the strongest candidates the party has produced.

So don't get lost in the details and defeat yourselves. Every democrat since Bill Clinton lost, ultimately, because they ran scared, just as this article is advocating. The USA hates a loser and won't vote for one. If you buy the other side's paradigms, you lose.

Obama's strength is that that he's not running scared; he has the confidence to say that his policies are the right ones for america, and to bring america to HIM, not the other way round.

Yes, I think this piece manipulates the right variables and forecasts the likely outcome if the party runs the 2008 election like they ran in 2004 and 2000. When you run as a loser, you lose. Why would you want to do that again? Isn't losing two losses in a row enough to make you decide that another approach is necessary? Obama is that other approach. He will run like a winner, and win.

[PaulLoeb]

PS--I agree, though, that this is a reason to keep pushing states to sign the interstate compact that would replace the electoral college with the popular vote

[PaulLoeb]

Dumb analysis. You can't just say Clinton won a state so Obama won't. Most of her backers are hard core backers who will carry over especially if she acts remotely as a team player if she continues to lose the nomination.

there's a long lit of red states potentially in play with Obama: Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, perhaps West Virginia. and Florida, possibly even a surprise in one of the southern states with major African American popluations. Nothing's guaranteed and we'll all have to work our tails off, but I don't see any swing state where Clinton has a greater advantage except Arkansas.

[DRHoen]

If the Democrats don't totally wipe out the Republicans in this election, no matter who are the nominees, America will be the laughingstock of the world (even more than it is now).

[tbone99]

Also if the war is kept off the front page and stays at quiet as it is now- thats a huge benefit for Mccain .If there are increased deaths or scandals that will help the Dems.If we had Dem candidates who actually supported leaving Iraq soon it would be very effective to just run a campaign of the amount of money being spent in Iraq on a clock for a minute, especially couple with a bad economy.

Unfortunately we have candidates who make a big deal about the past Iraq vote but nothing about the future.

[roncraw]

Clinton won most of the big states needed to win the general election.Obama won mostly small red states that he will never carry in Nov.

[samanthasmom]

I think Massachusetts is in play for the Republicans, too, if Obama is the nominee. Obama has been too quick to jump on his friendship with Deval Patrick. The similarity between the two campaigns is obvious. Governor Patrick is a disappointment here in Massachusetts, and by November may be at war with the Mashpee Wampanoags, who, legend has it, shared Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims. Endorsements by Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick all went to Obama, but we went for Clinton handily. Massachusetts is comfortable with Republicans in executive roles, and after the attacks on John Kerry's military service, may be unwilling to listen to attacks on McCain. I think Obama will have a harder time here than may be expected.

[LeeFromVA]

I'm not voting based on who can win, I'm voting for the best candidate, Obama. Luckily he's also the most likely to win. I think he will take many former red states including my home state of Virginia, which is now pretty much purple. There's really no point in arguing whether Hillary could take more states at this point. The only way she could win the nomination is to steal it, and if she does that she'll have very little support, and she still ENERGIZES the republicans.

[XYZ]

I don't know about this analysis Obama is a few points or on Par with McCain, and seeing how Obama works all the states, red, blue, and purple in his primaries, I think that McCain will be totally blown away. Given the grass roots political machine, the sad state of the Republican party, and virtually no money. I see Obama wining in places that are considered red right now. Plus with the looming recession, and the eventual cease fire going away.

[ProudLiberalDan]

The Democratic Party should be standing for abolition of the Electoral College and direct popular vote election, like every other country that directly elects the President. The reason conservatives like the electoral college is that is gives a built in advantage to the Republicans, discriminates against urban America, and allows them to win elections where they are not the first choice of the American people.

We should have a runoff-system, either via two-round-voting or ranked-cho­ice-voting­, where everyone is free to vote their first choice without worrying about "spoiling".

The "delegate" system is really just an insipid intraparty version of the Electoral College. Does a superdelegate for vote the national pledged delegate leader or the national popular vote leader or the deleage or vote leader in their state and district. Hogwash. Even if all states don't vote at the same time for the primary (and I think they should), why doesn't the popular vote carry the day?

We need to bring a little democracy to our republic.

If Kerry had won the electoral college and become President despite losing the popular vote (which came close to doing that in Ohio), that would have been two elections in a row where the popular vote winner didn't win the election. That would have led to demands from the whole political spectrum wholescale change. Right now, Conservatives argue about what the founding fathers intended, but the truth is the like the electoral college because it gives Republicans a better chance of winning elections they didn't earn.

[Marrob]

Obama will lose because the Rezko trial starts today and he will be called to the witness stand by the end of the month. America will see that they were "had" again by another Bush style campaign.

[Serfie]

Good analysis.

There are some things you might want to add:

Ralph Nader. I think he can pull some of the Edwards vote away from Obama.

Latinos and older women flipping to McCain, because of the Obamanistas Swiftboating of Hillary Clinton.

The racists in the middle of the country who will never vote for a Black man. Of course, the MSM is too cowardly to do any analysis of this dynamic, so we really don't know the power of the racist vote.

On the other hand, I think if the economy really tanks, which it looks like it probably will, I think many will swing to Obama, because the thought of McCain handing over more tax cuts to the rich to fix it will be too much to swallow.

[Plowboy]

It is indeed true that Senator Obama could win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. But considering that he can win anywhere Clinton can -- in those sure Democratic states. And he can win in red states where she can't, like Virginia, for example, he has a better chance to win than she does. I know that after the foul up with the professional idiots in Michigan and Florida, those will be hard states. But Obama will win Michigan. Florida is a problem but I don't want to say why.
There are several things to note: those machines! and the long long lines in innere cities. We'll probably see some of that tomorrow in Ohio. There have also been some changes in polling places as well. Anything to screw the poor working folks, right?
This is Amereica. Or is it? That's what the fight must be about. We need to overcome the obstacles now and eliminate them for the future.
Hillary would lose to McCain because she can't win a red state. Obama can.
Will he win in November or will the nation's willful ignorance,arrogant stupidity and silly prejudice win again? We'll fight and see.

[DennyCrane]

I hope Obama wins, but I still think this'll be a close election. In most polls against McCain, he wins but by single digits. In order for any Democrat to win in November, they need to turn enough red states blue. There are some states that are so solidly red that it won't matter who the Democratic nominee is. But there are a number of red states that Bush won by single digits. These are the states that Democrats need to focus on. It's also why Obama is more electable than Clinton. Clinton is quick to gloat about her victories in big states like New York and California. But seriously, does anyone think these states won't vote Democratic if Clinton isn't the nominee? The fact that Obama is not only winning red states, and by huge margins, speaks well for Obama. It says that he was a better chance of turning some of those slightly-red states blue. Clinton has no crossover appeal. We've already established that. Independents and Republicans will opt for McCain over Clinton. There's no guarantee that Obama will turn any red states blue. But why pick Clinton, a nominee who has no chance? Republicans weren't that wild about Bush in 2000. But they picked him cause of all the people they had to choose from, he was the one they thought was most electable. That's the problem with Democrats. They want the nominee who's perfect. They'll never get that. Do what the Republicans do to win. Pick the most electable, even if they're far from perfect.

[belikejeanvaljean]

One important thing to remember is that Obama has outperformed in the primaries and apparently has an excellent campaign organization. The same cannot be said for Hillary.

He may just be able to surprise everyone in the general as well. He is a very unique candidate.

As far as the Republican crossover vote mentioned by foreffecti­vegovernme­nt, there actually are many GOP'ers (or former GOP) who are very disenchanted with the war in Iraq (yes, some, like Obama, opposed it from the start), and who are horrified by the increase in the federal government size, scope and spending that has occurred during the Bush years. They are disgusted with the Republican party and the neocons who have taken it over. Many of them WILL vote for Obama in the general.