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.
Loading comments…
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
As Obama keeps picking up states with FEW electoral college votes, and give or take, his backers more than Clinton's argue for a "50-state" strategy, I would suggest that -- per KB's logic above -- we need a SIXTY-FIVE STATE STRATEGY:
50-STATE FIGHT FOR CONGRESS (EMPHASIZING THE 2/3 THAT HAVE SENATE RACES); AND A
15-SWING-STATE FOCUS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
This is a "risk-adjusted" approach.
One third of Senate is up for election..
Loose count: Of the 33 Senators up for re-erection (sic), 22 are Repukes.
Only 17 of them needed to convict in an impeachment trial.
Time to turn up the heat and IMPEACH in the HOUSE, even if the vote in the SENATE is the day before election day in November.
For the sake of the Constitution.
McCain will get, maybe up to 20% of the Democrats - older persons and some in the working class. Most Independents that Obama has been courting will go to McCain. All the Republicans that Obama thought he might get will definitely stay Republican.
Where are all you guys from? Were you born here? Do you know who lives in America?
Notes from a Republican Party Dinner last Saturday night:
The Republican Party definitely wants to run against the Obama-nation, they
call it. They think they can win big against Obama (by 20 points) so that
the Democratic Party will never recover. They were hype-ing up their
members to make sure everyone just gets out to vote and to talk to their kids so they don't get on the Obama train. With McCain, they expect to keep all the independents from going Democratic.
Now with Hillary - the word they put out to party members is that she might
win in 2008, but the party could get it back in 2012.
The Democrats can only win with Hillary.
The Democrats may (and did) snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but not this time.
Now with Hillary - the word they put out to party members is that she might
win in 2008, but the party could get it back in 2012.
Puh-leeze. Hillary is the GOP wet dream. She's their ONLY hope to galvanize their voters to go out and vote for a man they despise like McCain. Not happening.
Nice try, buddy.
Kristen,
Luv ya, you rock.
I agree and disagree with your overall premise.
For the presidential election, putting more relative effort in swing states seems a reasonable strategy but the next president would be most effective with a congress they can work with.
In this regard, a 50 state strategy becomes imperative. If one assumes the Dems could win the White House with only 20 states and limits their campaigning to those 20 states, it leaves the senators and representatives in the remaining states 30 states without the potential coattails of the presidential nominee to get their party voters to the polls.
In the end, we do need to select the nominee best suited to run in all 50 states. And in spite of my admiration for Hillary Clinton, I know so many Republicans that react to her the same way Democrats react to the mention of Karl Rove. I think it is no wonder so many red state Democrats are coming out in endorsement of Barack Obama. A bit of self-interest perhaps? When I look at state head to head polls against McCain, Obama fairs much better than Clinton in western states like Washington (not a gimme with Clinton), my state of Oregon, Nevada and Colorado.
In addition, Obama would appear to have the edge in Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and Maine. In the end, I truly believe Obama has a much greater chance of uniting the country and appears to have coattails. He appeals to voters in all parts of the country whether they are considered "relevant" or not on the presidential level. It is those "irrelevant" voters that will be determining whether the Dems pick up additional house seats in red states.
We have opportunities to pick up senate seats in Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, Idaho and need to defend seats in South Dakota and Louisiana. Obama is organized and visited these irrelevant states that Hillary has for the most part written off. If we consider what is best to grow the party overall, Obama is our obvious choice.
Don't fall asleep at the wheel spinning numbers, and for heaven's sake, check to see if you took the right baggage...
I stopped reading right here:
"Thus, keep in mind that any current Democratic wins in these states (or Obama momentum gained) is meaningles
Why, then, hold primaries in such states if they don't count as much or if the momentum gained from winning there is "meaningless"? It is rather arrogant of you, the Clinton campaign and everyone else subscribing to this "meaningless" rhetoric to exclude some of these states from contention. Once again, you want us to follow someone who is vying for the job of President of Half of the United States of America.
This practical talk makes me sick to my stomach.
I stopped reading right here:
"Thus, keep in mind that any current Democratic wins in these states (or Obama momentum gained) is meaningles
Why, then, hold primaries in such states if they don't count as much or if the momentum gained from winning there is "meaningless"? It is rather arrogant of you, the Clinton campaign and everyone else subscribing to this "meaningless" rhetoric to exclude some of these states from contention. Once again, you want us to follow someone who is vying for the job of President of Half of the United States of America.
This practical talk makes me sick to my stomach.
Makes sense except for the factual errors. Hillary Clinton won New Mexico, not Obama.
Hillary Clinton won Florida. You can argue that the votes shouldn't count but that primary was held after the SC win for Obama, after the Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsement, and after Obama ran national ads during and post the MLK holiday, which ran in FL. All in all, he got great press during the week immediately preceding the Tuesday primary in FL and Hillary beat him with nearly 800,000 votes.
Uh, no, jrterrier.
Florida lost its delegates because it moved it's Primary ahead of Super Tuesday (Feb 5) to Janurary 29th.
While South Carolina was, indeed, the 26th - there was no campaigning in Florida and I have to believe many voters, knowing their votes "wouldn't seat delegates" decided to not even bother. I wouldn't have voted if I knew my vote wouldn't count.
Senator Clinton had wide recognition across the country without campaigning. We still have people in this country who don't "know who Seantor Obama is" and apparently don't know how to use the internet to google the respective candidate's web sites and records and such.
Every state polled for over a year had Senator Clinton as the winner by a wide margin (20-30 points) . . . however as Senator Obama campaigns in each state before the actual caucus or primary, those leads decrease, sometimes disappear.
If, after some campaigning, Florida got another vote, you'd see things very differently. Perhaps Florida is more friendly to Senator Clinton in the end and she'd still win - but it'd be by a far smaller margin. Senator Obama could even win. This is why Senator Clinton wants the delegates for Florida and Michigan seated, not a re-election. No matter what, she'll do poorer with a revote.
This is exactly the kind of strategy that has lost the Democrats past elections and also the reason for Hillary's current woes. This picking and choosing of certain states and the complete disregarding of others as "not going to happen" states. Now I'm not saying there isn't truth to the argument that some states are firmly in the Republican column, but I also believe that some of that has to do with this very strategy. It's a proven failure. The Dems can't win the general election with this sort of mindset. Howard Dean had the right idea. Try and win as many states as possible. It may fail, but at least try and force the Republicans to defend those red states. You don't get votes until you ask for them.
Swing states aren't swing states because of Democrats or Republicans, but because of Independents. Exit polls so far have indicated that Obama does better, double digits better with Independents than Clinton. That does in fact matter a "hill of beans" because Independents also like McCain and the Democratic candidate will have to compete with McCain for Independents. Polls indicate that they trend towards Obama against McCain and heavily towards McCain against Clinton.
There's no point in basing your entire analysis on which states John Kerry won and didn't win. He's not running in this election and neither of the potential candidates are anything like him.
The reason Obama is still standing and slightly ahead in this primary is precisely because he and his campaign were clever enough to go after as many states as possible. It was poor strategy from Hillary's campaign to underestimate that and rely on the "big states". That's why she's now in a do or die situation with Texas and Ohio. This sort of strategy isn't going to fare any better in the general election if the Dems try it.
Hillary would need all the help she can get in the general winning over Independents. I don't think Obama will have that problem and having Hillary on his ticket would only hurt, not help his chances.
Let's not forget that this is not just a race for the White House.
It's also a race for Congress, and all the state-level races.
There are states that are probably unwinable in the presidential contest, but where there are contestable Senate and House races. Particularly in larger states with many House districts, the Democrats may not win the Electoral College vote, but a strong Democratic turnout can swing districts in these states their way.
Control of governorships and state legislatures is also important. We have a census coming up in two years with redistricting to follow. A few important pick ups of governorships and state senates and/or houses could be significant for the make up of the Congress in the coming decade.
Yes, we want to win the White House. But we also want to energize other Democratic races in as many places as possible. We need a candidate who get get people to register, get people to show up at the polls, and get indpendents and fed-up republicans to consider and vote for Democrats.
We need a 50-State Strategy, giving hope to and energizing Democrats everywhere. We need to make the republicans spend money defending places like Nevada, Arizona, Colorado. We probably won't take states like Georgia, Texas, North Carolina and Virginia, but we can make them spend precious money there, defending contested seats, leaving less for Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Missouri.
And demographics are changing in many of these states. We need to lay the foundation now to take advantage of these changes in the future.
I initially supported Edwards, I would probably support Hillary, unless it gets really ugly and sleazy with the Michigan and Florida delegates. But right now, I think Obama has the best chance of energizing the party nationwide and defeating the straight jacket express in November.
The question is, if Obama wins the nom, will Hillary be humble enough to be his running-mate?
Realistically, that's what it'd take for him to win the GE.
She needs him.
He needs.... WEBB.
Kristen, you are extremely bright, but you have a lot to learn about politics. Hillary will not bring "unity" to ANY ticket! She (and her "symbiotic" husband) will bring nothing but angry negativity to ANY ticket. Barack Obama can do a lot better in a running mate! He needs someone, stronger than he, maybe a military man like Jim Webb of Virginia, or a former General. Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives of almost any candidate imaginable. Why would that help us? I am a life-long liberal, and I absolutely HATE her! And my feelings are mild, compared to Republicans, who have HATED her a lot longer than have I. My hatred only goes back to the present campaign, when the Clintons began playing their "Tricky Dick Nixon," Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Bush Family Dirty Politics on Barack Obama! That was when I decided I really HATED them, and that I could never vote for her, even though I voted for him twice and covered up for him for 8 years, and "enabled" his conniving "shenanigans" while he was in office. Everything just boiled up to the surface, and I decided I had had enough! Like the wife of a substance abuser, I quit enabling these two, COLD TURKEY!!! Hillary Clinton cannot be our president, or our vice-president, because she is a pathological narcissist. We have, in Barack Obama, a man who can lead us to victory, WITHOUT the Clintons! We will help him, united together, with the knowledge and the conviction that our MOVEMENT is pure and above-board! We will do it together. YES WE WILL, & YES WE CAN!!!
Hillary will never be Obama's running mate. And I doubt she would help if she was.
If he gets the nomination, he should go with Jim Webb, Janet Napolitano, or Claire McCaskill.
If he gets the nomination, he should go with Jim Webb, Janet Napolitano, or Claire McCaskill.
Hell no! Claire McCaskill voted FOR telecom immunity. She is a total sell out.
Hillary needs Obama but Obama would be dragged down by Hillary, turning off all those moderate Republicans that are trending his way.
(Continued)
5. SOS- No, not the upside down old glory in a sign of distress, the same. old. shit.! You combine 1-4 and you have the reasons why the coalition that Barack is building is widening and not floundering. It may be generational, but what separates the perception of the candidates, is the unrealized goals of the greatest generation (McCain) and the Boomers (Hillary). After WW2 the greatest generation handed unparalleled prosperity, only to have the hippies turn their angst inwards, screw each other, and it all went up in smoke. Then they found religion in the all mighty dollar and became yuppies. The causes they were so passionate about so easily melted away by the lure of money.
So now it's time for a new paradigm in politics. You were naive in 04 and you've got some curve left for the learning. If rabid Hillary supporters, and brainless henchmen for McCain don't snuff out the rising of new common ground, then America will be well again. With a real working majority. And NOT the .1% victories the politics of old would deliver. Here endeth the lesson.
"Ohh you left out a bunch of stuff" -Rodney Dnagerfield from Back to School.
1. IRAQ- The war wasn't as well known to be screwed up in '04. With all the scathing documentaries and legitimate public sentiment heavily tilted against a pro-war candidate McCain loses, and sorry, so does Hillary.
2. Corruption- '06 was as much about the war as it was corruption and major gains were made in congress. As the Republicans have made abundantly clear in their scandals as well as their attacks on McCain, they are not a party that should throw stones, and the Democrats finally have the higher ground and plenty of ammo. Though the stones are metaphorical, and haven't materialized for D's in congress, maybe until today, they are there, should someone be unafraid enough to chuck 'em. Both Hillary and McCain lose this one.
3. Youth- I was naive in 2000, so I have a degree of cynicism above you in politics. Every campaign operative on both sides has been playing with the same deck of cards. Go after the seniors and activists and forget anyone else. The youth have been ignored or worse, mocked for 10 years now for their apathy. Well, now that they've grown up, and find reason to participate, they are voting in the same numbers the most reliable voters of the Dem party have been. Combine youth and convention, you get a movement. McCain and Hillary lose both of these.
4. TRUST- Combine reason 1 and 2 and you will understand why Dem's trust Hillary about one third as much as they trust Obama, and why Republicans, can't stomach their frontrunner. McCain and Hillary lose this one too.
I appreciate the article and the attempt to find some logic in all that is going on. The way the Democratic party is tearing itself apart right now is agonizing.
I like Barack, but I don't hear much except pretty platitudes from him. I like Hillary and am disgusted by the callous things supposed Democrats are saying about her.
My big fear is that Barack will get the nomination and either get torn to pieces by the Republican slime machine, or he will win and sweep Bush's history under a carpet in the name of 'unity.'
I have no fears regarding Hillary. She is extremely capable of cleaning up the godawful mess that she will find waiting for her. She's been there, she's done it, and she has the greatest political mind of our time as 'first-laddie' to boot.
Obviously, I think we need to go back to the idea of experience winning the job, and experience is what Barack hasn't got. How many budgets has he drawn up, for instance? There are too many problems to deal with for us to accept a president who has a learning curve as daunting as his would be, if elected.
Back to lurk mode...
I'd vote for the Dream Team. But I don't think the situation is as dire as you present it. McCain = Bush. Whoever the Democrats nominate will win. You can bet the subprime mortgage on it.
either dem is going to wipe the floor with mc cain. for god's sake, the republicans don't even like the guy. i'm not afraid of a rovian plan this time -- that worked the last two times because he could flip a single state. he'll have to flip 12 of them this time. isn't going to happen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
