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

[hermansf]

this analysis seems pretty simplistic. Obama or Clinton winning a state is not necessarily a direct predictor of who might do better against McCain. The bigger question is: what % of the other's voters is likely to show up and vote in November. This is difficult to predict, although Obama consistently does better with moderate/swing voters, so I'd have to guess that he would do better in most of these swing states. Hillary pulls in traditional Dems, and you'd have to guess they'd go with Obama, but the same is not true for the swing voters Obama is pulling in, even if Hillary won a particular state... There may also be cases to consider where Obama may have won a state but might not do as well as Clinton against McCain, but I can't think of any obvious examples/or the the logic to support this.

[BenMurphyNYC]

CNN has now called New Mexico for Hillary Clinton. Kristen I have a profound amount of respect for you and hope you will change your article. Obama did not win New Mexico, my home state.

[bjorn]

Clinton won New Mexico, not Obama.

[JackWOrf]

And here's one more little tidbit that nobody seems to be paying attention to.

The combined ELECTORAL VOTES of FL and MI come to 44. That makes Michi-florida the SECOND BIGGEST STATE. Only California, with 55 electoral votes, is bigger.

Do they not realize that Democrats in FL and MI are getting tired of TRYING to be Democrats? We are getting TIRED of trying to support the Democratic Party and getting nothing but PUNISHED in return.

In truth, I have never seen bigger IDIOTS than the DNC in my entire life. What complete and total MORONS!

For the DNC to be PUNISHING their own Democratic VOTERS in a critical swing state! How STUPID can you get? Surely, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are getting some incredible belly laughs out of the BOYCOTT of Florida!

WTF does the Democratic Party think we are? Castro's Cuba? Boycotting us??? INSANE!!! ARGGGGGHHHH (another Dean scream).

Hey, would somebody please feed the 2 900-pound gorillas in the room? Florida and Michigan are getting hungry. ARGHHHHHH.

[AnninCA]

Actually, Hillary won 1 more delegate in Missouri.

According to Obama-math, that makes her the real winner there. :)

[JadedAggie]

Wow I'm not sure what your sources are, but they suck Ann. Missouri has an even number of delegates and they split 36 to 36. If you are seeing a delegate count higher for Hillary it means it includes super delegates.

[JackWOrf]

Dear Kristen: I am a Florida Democrat. I am not going to say who I voted for, since the DNC seems to consider that irrelevant.

Is there any way that you could, somehow, knock some sense into Barak and Hillary's brains and get them to do a RE-VOTE in Florida and Michigan???

Unless Obama pulls WAY ahead, this primary COULD go on FOREVER. And there will NOT be party unity.

A re-vote in Florida and Michigan, along with the big Ohio and Penn primaries, will decide the results in UNAMBIGOUS terms. There WILL be a 2100 winner.

But it seems to me that BOTH candidates are CHICKEN. Barak is CHICKEN, because he might very well lose BIG in FL and MI. Just as he did on January 29. And there would be NO EXCUSES about how he didn't have time to campaign.

So Obama wants to cynically continue DISENFRANCHISING FL and MI because he cares MORE about winning then about his much-vaunted principles.

And Hillary wants to keep her hands on the 50-30 victories that she pulled over Obama. Even if she didn't have much competition. (Clever move, Barak).

So why don't we just say F.U. to BOTH of them and do the whole thing over. Otherwise, there is NO SOLUTION. And if Hillary wins big in OH and PA, you could have a TIE, which would be a complete and total DISASTER for the Democratic Party, and VICTORY BY DEFAULT for the Republicans.

After all, this is SUPPOSED to be an ELECTION. Could you possibly remind the DNC that this is supposed to be an ELECTION? The people of FL and MI are supposed to VOTE, and the DNC is supposed to COUNT those votes and assign delegates.

Could you POSSIBLY, somehow, remind these officious MEATHEADS that that is their job?
ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (Dean Scream, in UTTER FRUSTRATION).

[nomobull]

i don't think this decision is theirs to makeZ

[shawninCT]

You can thank your state's party for making your primary vote not count.

[preatorius]

The candidates are not the meat-heads. The DNC made the decisions, and all the candidates pledge to honor the party's decision. Clinton violoted this pledge and visited the state anyway.

The real issue is the fact that political parties, not the voters, determine whose voice will be heard, or in your case, ignored.

This is dangerous, and unconstitutional!

[djcny]

You're wrong, she did not violate the pledge, she never campaigned in Florida she went there for fund rasing which was allowed. Obama was showing campaign ads on their public air waves though. Get your facts straight before you comment for God's sake.

[jstock]

Florida and Michigan were both warned IN ADVANCE of the primaries that the freaking votes would not be counted. Rules are Rules, folks. Many people in those states very likely stayed home, because they knew their votes wouldn't count. In other words, STFU, you whining Clintonistas. You knew the rules before you voted, so don't act surprised now that you're candidate is behind.

[SteveCox]

Yes Edwards thinks Obama is a big P word. I agree. He's a little chicken afraid to fight a girl. LOL Little sissy boy Barack!. Just put Florida in the Mccain colum now if we are not going to vote for real there. And of course he will want a caucass, because he's a little coward that can't leave the polls open long enough for everyone to be able to vote. Just his eyes glazed over - koolaid sippin followers, I mean supporters...

Cmon you cowards, what are you afraid of, a girl?? Get out there and fight. Let the people vote! Come out and debate you little chickens!

Yeah, he'll be a great leader, if you like backing up and bending over. Will probably be invaded by France on his watch for crying allowed!

[getrealalready]

Congratulations on your finding Jim Henry! I must say that I, too, value Mr. Henry enormously, beyond politics, beyond blogging, beyond campaigns, beyond elections.
Happy Valentine's Day, Mr. Jim... You are sorely missed.

[JackWOrf]

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: THANK YOU!!! You have proven to me that there is still intelligent life on Planet Democrat!!!

However, reading over the comments, I must admit that there is not MUCH intelligent life on Planet Democrat. Certainly not in Obamanation.

The Obamaniacs have literally substituted WISH FULFILLMENT for REALITY. They seem to have accepted as FACT that there is going to be some TOTAL mind alteration on the part of Red America. This is nothing but wish fulfillment on their part.

The fact is, Obama is a big-city black liberal who has gotten HUGE numbers of blacks to vote for him. How do you spell t-e-r-r-o-r on the part of white America?

Not to mention that just within his NAME are the names of Red America's 2 biggest enemies: Obama rhymes with Osama, and Hussein rhymes with Sadam. Plus, add on that he wants an immediate pull-out from Iraq, which most of Red America considers to be TREASON.

And these people think that Obama is going to turn the entire USA blue? It is depressing that they are so totally irrational.

Since when is Obama "Ronald Reagan"? Ronald Reagan was the essence of mainstream, lily white America. He was the personification of the Old Wisdom. He turned America away from the seemingly disastrous hippy years of the 70's.

And people compare Barak to Reagan? Insane. Barak to JFK? Equally insane.

Barak could be a GREAT president. In 2016. He needs to eat some humble pie and sit at the foot of the master for 8 years. Yeah, the Master. Bill Clinton.

After 8 years as Vice President, his rough edges would be diamond hard and he could be a GREAT President. Unfortunately, I think that he may manage to win the nomination and crash upon the rocks of the election in a landslide red-state victory unparalleled since Reagan beat Carter.

And have you seen HUCKABEE? He is every bit as charismatic as Obama. If McCain puts him on the ticket, which he virtually MUST do, the two totally cancel each other.

[Spike3905]

Hillary must truly grateful for your support.

[jane1]

JackWOrf, I completely agree!! I am horrified by this ignorance, just as I was 8 years ago and certainly 4 years ago. The public hasn't learned a thing from our stupidity at the polls. I am disgusted that we are willing to turn our backs on the people that KNOW how to bring forth change, have been doing their homework on healthcare for over 20 years. Hillary and yes Bill would make it happen. No chance Barack isn't even proposing real universal healthcare and seems to easily be swayed. The powers that be are afraid of the Clintons and the propaganda machine is working beautifully as the people are falling for this crap all over again.

[jstock]

What a joke! LOL. Reagan a mainstream candidate? He was a radical right wing politician,who reassured enough voters with his great speaking style that he wouldn't be so scary. And Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution. And McCain is a flip flopping joke. Clinton is nobody's master, not even Hillary's. They are the past, folks. Let's move on.

[lldem]

Well Jack, it appears you're real hung up on names, so let's talk names. Seems to me the most famous Jack was Jack-the-Ripper. I guess that makes you a serial killer. And let's not forget the Johns. There was John Wilkes Booth and John Hinckley, both famous assassins - therefore John McCain should also be considered an assassin. See, anybody can play “Stupid Name Games”. And as I've noted before, you seem to have a fixation on the color of things. You state that Obama’s success is due to huge numbers of an ethnic group voting for him. Well you’re almost right, but the ethnic group leading the way is not the ones with the darker faces but us pale skins. Maybe if you COULD quit seeing everything as a COLOR, you would find out that we are all AMERICANS. First you mention a WHITE America, next you talk about RED America and then BLUE America. In case you didn’t know, those are the colors of our flag, not the actual colors of our country. I’ve traveled and lived all over this country and I’ve never seen any RED or BLUE states. Most of them are GREEN with some BROWN here and there. You talk about a “lily” white America. That may be close as long as you realize that lilies are considered a funeral flower, which is where that kind of attitude should be – dead and gone. I think you’re seeing things through republican colored glasses. Take them off and see your fellow countrymen for what they are – people from all nations and all ethnic groups, none of which are better than any other. By the way, there is no such word as “obamanation”. I suspect that is yours and Rush’s way of saying abomination. But keep on posting your republican talking points here. I get a real kick out of trashing you every chance I get. Peace and Love.

[casey123]

Good article - and Soooooo true.
I used to live in Idaho - and every county is red except one! In Idaho, it makes not one whit of difference who's running, the 4 electoral votes are Republican by definition.
All these wild eyed bushy tails jumping up an' down are disconcerting. Time for some Reality Checks and a little less hysteria. This isn't American Idol - 'feel good' all you want, but that won't fix our ailing government.

[bauersox]

Good post by casey123. A lot of these fan-club supporters just don't get it. The primaries Obama has won may have given him the edge where delegates are concerned, but unless he can win in the right states, what he's accomplished so far is less than meaningless -- it's misleading and destructive.

[Groobiecat]

No one addresses the details of the race--the war, the need for change (we're not zombies, for chrissakes, we're sick of the idiots in DC who promise and don't deliver). I lived there and worked on the Hill for many years, and I know the old guard. They won't change anything other than increase the deficit and keep us mired in a war that killed a million people for years to come.

Barack has pulled the disaffected and alienated into his camp, and Republicans are voting for him, for god's sakes. Or is that inconsequential? That's just a fluke, I suppose. Also, MANY of these Republicans HATE John McCain, but they'd rather vote for him than Hillary, whom they HATE even more.

It's not American Idol, but it is about bringing people together, and not just saying you have been working to change things for 35 years (by the way, does no one get the irony of that statement--how's the working for everyone?).

[loislane88]

Thank you for your analysis. Does the fact that even in the "red" states that we won't win in Nov have been showing the Dem turnout to be at least double than the Reps factor in? Could that possibly mean they can be swayed our way?

[Elderito]

Kristen is correct, we really need to support both candidates until it is decided. I like Hillary the most, because I believe she has fought long and hard and suffered much for the cause, but I also like Mr. Obama and he could bring a lot to the table for repairing our nation.
There is however one Red state phenomenon we should consider when looking at Obama's numbers. He doesn't suffer from the widespread right wing Hillary Hate found here in Utah and other very red states. This dislike for Hillary is irrational, and when I ask people why they don't like Hillary they look at me the same way I imagine southerners used to look at Yankees who questioned racism. A bit of a deer-in-th­e-headligh­ts, 'doesn't everyone hate Hillary?' look, then they catch their breathe and stumble over a few bits of nonsense to explain why they dislike her.
Like it or not, some of that may lop over onto the swing voters in those swing states; I think it influenced Democrats here in the redlandia. Perhaps Obama is the best person to beat McCain, because the right wing has no experience punching him.

[Canukistani]

With all due respect, I think you're looking at this through the lens of what has happened in the past and while the past is certainly relevant, I think that these are different times and that maybe the old rules-of thumb are not as directly applicable as they normally would be.

The last few years may have been bad enough for enough people that they're willing to consider making a more fundamental change than they would have otherwise. I suspect that when Bill Clinton talks about rolling the dice, a lot of people are taking that as an invitation rather than seeing it as a threat. It may be that the old math doesn't apply this time and, if enough people are ready to take Bill's invitation, there may be some unexpected wins. I don't really expect it. It's usually the tried-and-true predictable pragmatist that wins these things, but it's something to think about and it might even be something to hope for.

[baghdadjoe]

The "15 State Strategy" is a divisive strategy, and a failed strategy for the Democrats.

I'm glad that Obama has the vision and determination to include ALL Americans in the presidential process.

[shawninCT]

I think you're wrong on two points.

We can turn red states to blue states this election, and now is not the time to think about who will do better in swing states. The evidence is really intangible. Let the primary process work itself out, and then we work on the independent voters.

The conservatives have been calling the waaaaaambulance because McCain is winning the nomination. Liberals should not make the same mistake with Hillary or Obama. It's bad voodoo

[SShaw490]

Obviously, either Hillary or Barack will be a much different candidate than Kerry was, and in a much different political environment; with that said, the fact that Obama won 5 of the 9 "Win 'Em Back" states and they're even in the "Gotta Hold On" states, has to make Obama people smile just a bit.

[JXB]

Agreed, but with one side note coming from Robert Scheer's interesting observation last week about how Clinton and Obama will match up against McCain on Iraq, which of course will be a major issue in the general election and remains one of the primary reasons for Bush's very low approval ratings.

For Obama, it's fairly straightforward: I'm the candidate who was against the war from the start, and he's the Bush war candidate. This issue, and this powerful distinction alone, may be all difference the Dem ticket needs in the general.

For Clinton, however, it is a very different matter. As Scheer pointed out, McCain can be anticipated to advance the campaign argument that "Hillary and I both had the same intelligence, the same information at the time, and we both voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. However, since then, when the going got really tough and the surge was needed, she lost her nerve. I didn't." Consider other variations on this basic position, including a recycled version of the Kerry torpedo from 2004 ("He voted for it, and now he says he's against it"), and this would seem to be a significant potential point of vulnerability, and not just in swing states.

[Groobiecat]

Excellent points. What people fail to see is that this is not 2004, and Kerry is not Barack Obama. I think your basic analysis is right, and why McCain is really afraid of Barack--and why the attack machine is already gearing up against him.

McCain defeats Hillary because, let's face it, most of the country's Republicans don't like her and will never vote for her. The same is not the case for Barack--he's pulling in a lot of Republicans and independents, many of whom voted for Ron Paul in the primary but will vote for him in the General.