Reality Bites: Swing-State Math

In '04, I traveled as a surrogate for the John Kerry campaign. I was sent to places like Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Florida. Quite the roadtrip.

In the beginning, I wondered why I kept getting sent to these random "swing states." Iowa (a state in 2004 with, yes folks, only one Starbucks!!) Why did Iowa matter? I was a political novice. So dumb. So naïve.

To me, it seemed so terribly undemocratic that a handful of states could determine who became our president. Likewise, It never truly clicked in my head when my New Yorker friends would wryly state that their vote didn't count. Of course their vote counted. Every vote counts. This is America, right?

And then on Election Day '04, I learned the hard way why those swing states mattered so much. John Kerry lost Ohio and Florida and therefore lost the election to George Bush. Four more grueling years of Republican rule. My impression on that sad day? 1460 days to go.

Now with roughly 240 days until Election Day '08, one thing remains the same: THE ONLY VOTES THAT WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTING JOHN MCCAIN AND A DEMOCRAT TO THE WHITE HOUSE ARE THE SWING STATES.

So with all this talk of delegates and superdelegates counting and not counting, why has nobody (at least to my knowledge) looked at how either Clinton or Obama performs against McCain in the crucial 15 swing states? Frankly speaking, isn't that really all that matters?

Let's consider:

1. "Not a Chance" Red States

First, consider the 20-22 states that are historically Red States. In other words, these states go to the Republicans no matter what. For example, in '04 John Kerry only got 37% of the vote in Kansas. In Texas, Kerry only got 38% of the vote. See my point? These states include: Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alaska, North Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Montana, South Dakota, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arizona, West Viriginia, North Carolina.

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in many of these states. Undoubtedly, these wins have contributed to building Obama's "unstoppable momentum."

But, on Election Day '08 Barack Obama will not win any of these states. Neither will Hillary Clinton. They will go to John McCain.

Thus, keep in mind that any current Democratic wins in these states (or Obama momentum gained) is meaningless.

2. "Sure Thing" Blue States

Next, consider the 13 states that are historically Democrat in nature. In other words, these states always vote Democrat-even if Big Bird was on the ticket. These include: Maryland, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Washington, New Jersey, Delaware, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine.

Either Barack or Hillary will win these states on Election Day '08, so they do not factor into any analysis as to who is a stronger Democratic Presidential candidate. In short, these numbers are meaningless.

The CORE ISSUE

For there to be a Democratic president, the Democratic nominee must hold all states won by John Kerry in '04 by less than 5% plus at least one more from the states that Bush won by less than 5%. If the Democratic nominee loses one more state than John Kerry, then we need to pick up more than one other swing state to make up that difference. Got it?

So let's take a look at the 15 "Battleground/Swing" States:

A."Must Hold Onto" States:

First there are the states that we must match John Kerry. These are the 6 "Must Hold On To" States where Democrats won within 5%: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Minnesota.

So far, New Hampshire and Minnesota have held their primaries. Hillary won New Hampshire and Barack won Minnesota. A draw.

Regrettably to date, Michigan and Pennsylvania remain unknown.

Also note that John McCain is incredibly popular in New Hampshire.

Finally, because Michigan is led by Democrats and faces an economic malaise, there might be a Democratic backlash in '08, meaning it might be vulnerable and ripe for Republicans. Unfortunately, Obama and Edwards withdrew from the ballot and we have no numbers for Michigan. This is obviously a huge and unfortunate screw-up.

To repeat though, we must "hold onto" all 6 states--including Michigan.

B. "Let's Get 'Em Back" States:

Nine states are states where the Republicans won within 5%. These are: Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico. These states are where we find our plus one more than Kerry.

Remember we must win one of these additional states (ergo, plus one more) to get the White House in '08. Moreover if we accidentally lose Michigan to McCain, we will need to pick up more than one of these states to make up that difference.

Thus, how Obama and Hillary run in these states really, really matters.

So far Obama took Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico. Hillary won Arkansas and Nevada.

Most notably, Florida and Ohio (the two key states that Kerry lost in '04) remain unknown.

Who might run stronger in Florida or Ohio? Does anyone have answers? Where is the data that proves that Barack Obama when pinned against John McCain runs better than Hillary Clinton in states like Florida and Ohio? Or any of the other 13 swing states for that matter?

How should Democrats feel about Barack Obama not credibly building the bulk of his "unstoppable momentum" in these 15 vital states? Should Democrats feel vulnerable with just the unstoppable Obama on the ticket? What do you think Karl Rove thinks?

What does this all mean?

For starters it means that on Election Day '08 it doesn't matter a hill of beans that Barack Obama beat the pants off Hillary Clinton in places like Idaho. Idaho hasn't figured into Democratic numbers/analysis for years. So cool your jets with the whole Obama momentum bit.

Likewise it doesn't matter that Obama may have better national poll numbers against McCain. National numbers don't mean squat on Election Day.

Fifteen states, folks. That's all that matters. Those 15 states should be our sole focus TODAY. Because if we want the Democrats in the White House in '08 then we need to support the Democratic Candidates who run best in the crucial swing states. And that means we need to support BOTH Hillary and Barack until we have a more definitive answer. Period. End of Story.

Like it or not, the hard, undeniable, and very real numbers speak for themselves. Neither candidate can (as of yet) win the vital swing states alone which is why both Obama and Clinton need each other on Election Day 08.

Democrats it is time for us to grow up, smarten up, and rise up above ourselves and our differences (however big or small they may be) because we've got a White House to win back.

Once again, i reiterate: UNITY TICKET '08

POSTSCRIPT: HuffPost doesn't allow for a dual byline so I need to take this space to credit and source Jim Henry over at submergingmarkets.com who helped me write this piece. Jim is a passionate Obama supporter and very good friend--not to mention a scary smart numbers guy. So thank you Jim...and Happy Valentine's Day.

Comments

[ntmessage]

Latest update. Indeed a couple of the Polls published now shows some of the positions taken here and written off a few weeks ago are now coming together.

1. Demonstrates KS as coming into play as predicted and likely flipped by Obama in the general.
2. Reinforces the prediction that Obama loses PA to McCain while Hillary would win it.
3. Moves WI as a toss up with Obama, while Clinton wins there.

Summary

Obama flips KS, MO and IA, loses PA, MI, NJ (yes that is the prediction) and CT while FL, OH, TN, AR, KY, NM, CO, NV stay RED, WI is a tossup. Obama and the Democrats lose the Electoral College and the Presidency.

Clinton keeps PA, MI, NJ WI while flipping FL, OH, TN, AR, KY, NM, CO (yes that is the prediction), NV, KS, MO, WI and NV Clinton and the Democrats win the Electoral College and the Presidency.

McCain runs the lower Rockies and the Bible belt. VA may come into play, but do not see that yet. It will be a bloody campaign even if Obama the nominee.

For Clinton NM, is ripe for the taking while Reagan Dems, Natives and Hispanic voters are more established in the south of CO. Looks like a coming together of northern NM. Eastern CO flips to Dem from Pubs. Tancredo’s district will hold, but lose many to Hillary. Pubs gain with Obama in that district.

I will keep updating as and if things change.

[ntmessage]

A couple of the posts further below possess false objectivity and irrational analysis that miss the point of Kristen post.

Her post is about swing states. The larger the state the more impact on the Electoral College that elects the president. One post simply states the national polls were both are ahead of McCain. However if you do the Electoral College arithmetic, McCain leads Obama and Hillary wins.

Another reforms the point into Rube Goldberg model that demonstrates your point yet concludes it is wrong. They state that taking the increase in new Democratic voters are higher that Republicans in several, albeit small states. However as the analysis mentions, unless that increase along puts the spread states within five percent, it cannot be a new swing state. Then they make the argument that Michigan and Florida do not count anyway and we do not need to add them to the analysis. This is why exactly Obama will likely lose those states in the general and Hillary wins them in the Fall.

While this math may hold up for the primary – this is the exact point. In the general, they do not! Hello!

To many poli-sci classes and note enough aritmethic? No, just a fake primary, false objectivity and irrational judgments will help the republicans, along with complicit media.

[vsign]

Obama was given the privelege of running within the Democratic Party. He needs to honor our party members. So far he has failed. It is his job - his job - to bring his voters with him if Hillary wins. For him to suggest otherwise makes him a fake Democrat. But then I think he is a fake and his followers are worshipers in need of a mega-church. I am really uncomfortable about his preaching hate against older people beginning with Hillary. Maybe we will lose some young people. But if Obama wins the nomination you will lose alot of older people and working class people like me. If the party goes along with "burning the bridge to the past" , it will lose its soul, me and the general election to McCain.

[NeuvoLiberal]

Kristen, what matters is how HRC and Obama are likely to fare in the GE vs McCain.

Now, in post-prima­ry-state-G­E polls, Obama is doing stunningly well in IA, NH, NV, CO. Note that he lost the primaries in IA and NV, but yet we have:

In New Hampshire, which Bush won in 2000, Obama currently leads McCain by thirteen points, while Clinton leads him by only two points.

Today a new poll from Rasmussen was released in Nevada, which voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, showing Obama leading McCain by twelve points, while Clinton loses to McCain by nine points.
link: http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=818

Obama and HRC are roughly tied w/ McCain in FL and MO. But, Obama is doing better than HRC nationally vs McCain.

Moral of the story: Once Obama campaigns in a given place, his numbers in both the primary and GE contests go up.

[rickd24]

Maybe this is a better way to look at this - which party got the most votes in the primaries in the swing states? Normally this doesn't prove anything since one party or the other usually has decided on their candidates pretty early, which will depress turnout for that party. But both sides were heavily contested this time for much longer, which in theory should draw heavy turnout.

Here how it worked out in the "swing states" that you listed, if they have already held both held primaries/caucuses:

New Hampshire: Dems 284,104; Pubs 233,381
Minnesota: Dems 212,251; Pubs 62,200
Arkansas: Dems 298,338; Pubs 218,266
Missouri: Dems 820,453; Pubs 584,618
Virginia: Dems 970,393; Pubs 481,980
Colorado: Dems 119,184; Pubs 55,845
Nevada: Dems 10,560; Pubs 44,324
Minnesota: Dems 212,251; Pubs 62,200

All are solid for the Dems except for Nevada.

I excluded Michigan & Florida since their votes didn't really count. And the Iowa Dems didn't list vote totals.

By the way, I wouldn't count out some of those "Not a Chance" Red States. I don't have time to add them up, but there were several that had a lot more voting in the Democratic primaries/caucuses. Just taking a quick look, I see the Dems with more votes in Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennesee, and barely behind in Alabama. I would say that any of them are in play too. Keep in mind that a lot of these so called Red States are only voting Red in the presidential election, they have a lot of Dems as governors and in the state legislatures and. So don't write them off! Maybe they went Red at the top of the ticket because the Dems have been nominating such awful candidates. A good Democratic candidate running a good campaign should win at least half of these so called "Not a Chance" states. Especially against a stay the course candidate like McCain.

[jbstonesfan]

100% correct-his "big wins" in republican states mean nothing. His only credible wins imo are Ill and Colo. All other caucus states are meaningless and the other wins are strictly b/c Hillary has lost the entire black vote b/c of race baiting by the Obama camp. If she wins Ohio, Tx, and Penn she is in. She also won in Florida big as well as Mich and these delegates will be seated...O­bama will never carry Florida as the Jewish vote is overwhelmingly pro Hillary and will switch to McCain as Obama is surrounded with anti-Israel policy advisors and ministers.­..........

[Reddogtcb]

Giving up on states is just the wrong attitude. Period. How many blue states did Reagan get his second term?

If we aren't willing to talk to half the states, then we, as a country, deserve to loose.

[zjr909]

One of my co-workers insists she'll NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton because...­(drum roll)... because the camera caught Hillary "rolling her eyes" during the 2002 State of the Union message. Please, people, please understand: this is the idiotic sort of thing that determines most average Americans' voting pattern. You're not dealing with rocket scientists, or Joe Friday's who insist upon "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." The number of people who really, truly are influenced by ideas and policies and party platforms.­..would probably fit in a smoke filled room. Have a very, very great care - and listen very, very carefully to what someone like Kristen Breitweiser says. Don't assume anything. Not in a land where rolling your eyes disqualifies you from holding office!

[Democrab]

I really loved Stevie Wonder's speech on the NAACP awards show last night. He said it all.

[truesoccermom]

You are not thinking outside the box. Obama has been winning over Republicans -- many of them ("Obomicans"), not to mention Independents in large numbers. You also have to factor in the youth vote that he is bringing to the table in record numbers. Obama can easily win states like Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, and more. (They even say he could win Georgia or North Carolina). Something different is going on in this election and if Obama is our candidate you won't be able to rely on the same old red-state /blue-state analysis and the Dems could win BIG. However, if HRC is the candidate we will have to do the math like you suggest state by state and try to squeek out that 51-49% victory.

[rwferr]

That is what Obama tells us but that does not mean its gonna happen this way. I am not convinced that all these Republicans are gonna wake up on election day and decide to vote for the most liberal man in the Senate. Mrs. Clinton has here problems as well but lets not go off into fantasy land.

[exoevolution]

Kristen it sounds like you are opening up to Obama.

Your analysis is great, but I feel that most importantly this election cycle is about "change".

Obama is the "ultimate" "change candidate" on so many levels. Hillary is the Democratic poster child for the "past" & "the old ways" that no longer work.

The showdown I want to see is Obama - "CHANGE"/"FUTURE" vs McCain - "the Republican poster child for the PAST".

This election as this primary season has shown has broken all the rules!

After 7 years of the "COMPLETE DISASTER" of W, the American people are "eager" for HOPE & Obama's message of "Yes 'WE' Can!!!

[esq193]

Hey News flash-

Both Michigan and Florida went to Hillary Clinton. They also called New Mexico for her last night. Where did you do your research?

Just because Howard Dean does not understand the importance of NOT PISSING OFF the very states we need to win in November does not mean they have not held primaries. Not a single Democratic contender campaigned in Florida or Michigan- Hillary Clinton STILL WON MORE VOTES than John McCain in Florida.

[moonjumper]

Oh that's right, she beat "Uncommitted" in Michigan.

[JazzyJake]

Your calculus here is one more reason to eliminate the Electoral College - if we even need any other than it's undemocratic. When States are not in play, the voters for the out-party are disenfranchised. Since it would be nearly impossible to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC, Maryland has signed onto the scheme to bypass it by promising to cast its votes to the winner of the popular vote, conditioned upon this scheme being accepted by the other States. Should this or EC repeal pass, all States would be in play in the Presidential contest and all votes would be meaningful.

[ntmessage]

When Kristen does the homework and crunches the numbers it is empirical – not Convention Wisdom. Campaign slogans mischaracterizing the author’s analysis with anecdotal throwaway rhetoric with negative conclusions misses the point. For thoughtful readers:

1. Swing states matter. She learned first hand the magnitude of the voters in many states across the country, both Democrat and Republican. Conventional Wisdom is anecdotally rationalizing squishy analysis like people hate Hillary and everyone I know is voting for Barack. Both Hillary and Barack are better candidates than both Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004.
2. The new Democratic movement 50 state strategy began in 2005 just after the 2004 election (2 years BB – Before Barack). No one is attacking the value of a 50 state strategy. It would be awesome to steal a few Red states in the fall, but more importantly nail down Governors and other elected officials. They are all important.
3. Assuming the new Democratic movement disproportionately, helps one candidate over another is disingenuous and unsupported by a critical mass of fact. The growth of the party likely overcomes any chance Democrats will need to depend on Republicans to swing over and help decide any race in their favor. Making that proposition, a requirement is an unfounded risky rationalization.
4. Finally to think that a critical mass of Republicans will not be as wed to their positions as the people on this blog is naive. They do not wear their potions right out on their sleeve. Bringing the country together is a media borne concept. Most of the country 80% is in the center more or less. The far right and far left dare I say will take some time to come together, and is not a necessity to happen.

The vast majority of the country already wants the type of change that a democratic Presidency will provide. Large swing states decide the election - the arithmetic is empirical - not Conventional Wisdom. This reality prohibits anyone from bringing hard-core republicans and democrats together any time soon – and certainly not anytime before this election.

[awb]

having followed you since your impressive drive for the 9/11 hearings - it strikes me that you may have been better off when you were a "political novice"

just an observation but that kristen would not have said some of the "party hack" logic contained not only in this, but also in other recents posts you have made

you're a smart lady - you know that Obama can contest for the independent vote against McCain. All the empirical and anecdotal evidence of this is clear. It is equally clear that Sen Clinton does not attract independent voters.

Since the Clinton campaign has said this week alone only "certain states count" and has basically dissed the states they haven't won --how can your "every vote counts" point of view square with the Clinton campaign's mantra that only the states they win count?

of all people - looking at your life from outside - one would think you would embrace not only "change" but "hope"