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

[sansho1]

This strategy is cynical, short-sighted, and wrong. I understand its appeal to relentless poll-watchers, but poll-watchers view the next election as an end date.

Those of us committed to seeing this country pursue progressive policies know that the best way to build a powerful and lasting progressive movement is to make your case to as many people as possible, so that they know the party is about more than merely winning elections.

Amazingly, people respond to authentic appeals, and will support you in places you might not have imagined. But if you write them off, they'll write you off, too. Nobody likes to be ignored.

[sdskelton03]

I will support McCain in November, but I would like to have my two cents here.

This essay can be summed up as saying that the democrats should support whatever candidate does best in those 15 states. Nothing else matters.

Whatever happened to core beliefs? Whatever happened to presenting the electorate with a candidate that best expressed the heart and soul of your party?

I think you are making a grave mistake if you choose based on electability. It didn't win for you in 04' and it didn't win for the republicans in 96.

Stand up for what you believe in. Fight for it with passion and vigor. That way, if you win, you really do win rather than just not lose.

[getrealalready]

Pop culture is why people blog sometimes. Knowing what you want with a passion, reaching for it with a passion, voting with a passion, even having cancer with a passion- what's the point of living if you're a stump?

[dtd]

I'm trying to figure out why it matters to win in states that are reliably Democratic. Isn't the objective to swing states like Virginia?

[OSUMercutio]

Democrats will win California, Mass., and New York so those don't count either, right? Give me a break!

[magen]

You're talking what's called "conventional wisdom" in this post. So far, this election has proven "conventional wisdom" wrong time after time. Why do you think that this trend won't continue? I think there's going to be many more surprises in this election. Many traditionally "red" states are going to go blue this time-watch.

[ATLiberal]

Reagan won 49 states. Forget this red and blue crap and think in terms of the Reagan Democrats.
The 50 state strategy is the way to go. Obama has already started that strategy in the primaries. He has organized, campaigned in and won those states. The people in those states will remember that and he has a chance to have Obama Republicans in those states to put him over the top. Think out of the box.

[useyourbrain]

Less than % of the registered voters in Washington voted and BO did win by a large margin. But that is less than .5% of the possible voters.

Caucuses do not represent how states vote but how well local organization is. Not many people can take a day out of their lives for the arcane procedures that the caucus uses.

McCain will pretty much get the South, including Texas.

Listen to this woman -- the super delegates have to go for the candidate with a REAL chance of getting the Dems and independents.

BO is a one shot wonder. Even his wife says he won't run again if he loses. If he wants to change the atmosphere in DC then let him work on that as a Senator for another 10 years and then go before the public with a record to stand on in addition to his oratorial gifts.

The USA cannot survive another Repuglian as President but many independents will vote for McCain if they feel the House and Senate will be in even stronger Dem hands (which it will -- today's Lantos snub is just the cherry on the icing on the cake of RNC defeat). People may want a divided government after seeing what GWB and the Repugs did for almost 8 years.

[ATLiberal]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The 50 state strategy is about more than simply short term wins and losses. In a year when the Dems should have a lot more money than the Repugs, forcing the Reps to spend scarce resources to shore up the red states, while at the same time, winning some hearts and minds along the way has a good chance of turning up a surprise victory or two, while at the same time building a base in these previously neglected red states for the future.
We will see how it plays out.

[RealistDem]

I totally agree that the super delegates have to go for the candidate that has real change of getting dems and independents. Obama is cleaning Hillarys clock in Independents.

[LadyEagle]

Very thoughtful piece. One observation New Mexico has not yet been decided. Missouri was so close it was not funny, a concerted effort by activists to vote uncommitted in Michigan.

I think it is still going to be close between the two candidates with no clear winner and none wanting to be on the other's ticket.

[ntmessage]

Finally! A report based upon empirical data – not based upon a great media story, ideology nor emotion. The excellent analysis here takes into account the national election reality and not the Democratic primary model that picks the party candidate. In reality, the Republican primary model is much closer to the actual election model that chooses the next president. I used to say its like the Democrats run a selection for the best checker player and then enters them into a chess match.

I would love to hear some additonal comments on the following calculus, if possible – obviously I had too much time on my hands last weekend and drilled down a lot, but here is a Summary.

Not a chance Reds: Clinton might flip Tennesse. Obama might flip Kansas. Both Clinton and Obama could put Loiusana in play – if there are any Democrats left there after Katrina. Agree otherwise - no way will a Democrat win in those states.

Not so sure Blues: Hillary easily wins New Jersey, but Barack will have issues. Reagan Democrats populate much of that state. Hillary may have issues in Washington; will Obama fanatics vote enough for Clinton?

Must holds/Get em back: If Obama is the candidate, kiss Michigan and Florida good-bye thanks to the brilliants folks running the Democratic Party. Clinton will win those states due to the large ex New York population in FL and Reagan Democrats in MI. Pennsylvania is a lot like New Jersey with the Reagan Democrats and Obama could easily lose there. Clinton wins.

Obama gets Iowa and Missouri Back, Clinton does not. Clinton gets Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Obama likely loses all of these. Obama makes Ohio close; Clinton flips Ohio by a wide margin.

All said, a unity ticket makes it a Landslide. As it should be.

[BenMurphyNYC]

I AM IN LOVE WITH THE UNITY TICKET IDEA TOO!!

Here are the RealClearP­olitics#'s :
Battleground State Polls
OH: McCain 42, Obama 40
OH: McCain 44, Clinton 43
PA: Obama 42, McCain 41
PA: Clinton 46, McCain 40
FL: McCain 41, Obama 39
FL: McCain 44, Clinton 42

[JackWOrf]

Polls are almost worthless. Particularly with Hillary, since women do not give honest answers. Something that every intelligent man knows anyway.

[useyourbrain]

Bravo -- email that to every Dem in Congress and local governments. This is the reason super delegates are important as they can rise above the "HUGE" win in Washington for Obama which was actually about .5% of the registered voters in that State. We have already seen the noble, but failed, Presidency of a one-shot wonder coming from nowhere (Carter) and the no-shot wonder for the last 8 years. We don't need an leader who cannot lead. Do you think all the Repugs and Dems and lobbyists will go gaga for Obama? They won't fill college gyms with rallies for him. They will ignore him.

[RobBob]

Obama has a much better chance of getting the Republicans to play ball than Hillary does. A Repo super-minority in the Senate will kill any initiative Clinton puts on the table. Not so with Obama, since he'll certainly involve them in the negotiation process. And if that doesn't work, then he'll be much better suited to go over Congress' head to the people.

[loislane88]

Why do you think Obama can't lead...cur­ious?

[cephalgia]

I think your ideas are sound, but all numbers are flexible. We don't really have a good idea of match-up numbers yet. The Republican slime machine hasn't even gotten started.
I also think Michigan will go blue. They are smart enough to know their economic woes have come at the hands of a Republican administration.

[BenMurphyNYC]

This story needs to be correct. Hillary Clinton is still leading in my home state of New Mexico according to CNN and CBSNEWS. Hillary: 68,659 vs. Obama 67,538. 99% reporting.

[nomobull]

its over she won with 1709 difference I thimk

[TheCount]

I disagree with your "Not a Chance" group. I live in the reddest of red states, Mississippi. The right-wingers down here hate McCain. I believe that Obama has a realistic chance to carry Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and North Carolina. Maybe he only gets one, maybe he gets more, I would be shocked if he got none or all. A lot depends on the running mate of McCain.

To give an example of what is going on down here, see our recent governor's race. We have a VERY popular GOP governor here in MS, Haley Barbour who used to be head of the RNC. He only garnered 58% of the vote this past November against a third-tier dem challenger. Polls recently show that former governor Ronnie Musgrove(D) leads Roger Wicker(R) by double-digits for the senate seat vacated by retired Republican Trent Lott.

I am not saying that things have completely reversed course, but there is a window of oppurtunity that has opened. This is a more realistic chance to make inroads in the south, than we have seen since the GOP takeover. This is not the time to write off whole areas of the country.

[zcosca]

And don't forget, all those "Not a Chance" states were before Chairman Dean came to power and instituted a correct 50-State Policy, raising funds and putting ground operations in place all over the map. The "swing state" policy was sucker punch Rove duped the DNC into believing, knowing that he had the Democratics out-funded and could overwhelm them in a designated limited number of states. Let's not fall for this proven failing strategy again.

[RobBob]

Also note that the Dems will be much better funded this year than in the past, and will likely have lots more money for the general election than McCain will.

[useyourbrain]

I think the last time Mississippi went Democratic was in 1960. Think again. But then again, Mississippi has always had a soft spot for Blacks (and Jews). Go ask the families of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney.

[TheCount]

What do the awful racial killings you brought up have to do with the situation on the ground NOW?
I refuse to surrender my state to ignorance. Normally I would say we had no chance of winning down here, but I have real hope now. If you want to help good, if not get the Hell out of way and keep your close-minded opinions to your self. I would not want you in my foxhole.

[sky2evan]

Great argument for not discounting Red States.

The problem with Ms. Breitweiser's history-numbers based analysis is that it doesn't take into account Mr. Bush's current 27% popularity rating, nor does it take into account Mr. Obama's cross-over Independen­t/Republic­an appeal... which Mr. Kerry, obviously, did not have.

We should not jeopardize that cross-over appeal by putting Ms. Clinton on the ticket, which will effectively neutralize that appeal.

[GMSkarka]

You're not looking at turnout in those states.

Here in Kansas, for example, the "red staters" that you claim will comfortably go for McCain HATE HIM, and barely showed up during their caucus -- and they voted for Huckabee.

Obama, meanwhile, drew 75% of the vote, with record attendance at the Dem caucuses. All over the state -- record turnout.

Plus, he's got the endorsement of a very popular governor (Sebelius).

I don't think the electoral math is as cut-and-dried as you'd like to believe. A candidate who is causing massive levels of enthusiasm, and drawing independents and moderate Republicans as well, going up against a candidate whose own rank-and-file are dissatisfied with him? I'm smelling landslide.

[jeanniem]

I also attended Kansas Dem caucus, and I absolutely believe KS is in play. But that assumes Obama as the nominee.
It should also be noted that the KS Rep party has been in very sad shape for a long time, mods v cons. Also eastern KS also has two Dem congressmen. In fact, an argument can be made that Clinton actually energizes otherwise disspirited conservatives here in the general. With Obama, they will be moribund.

[SamThornton]

Correk me if I'm wrong, but this post seems to outline the underlying argument that cost Gore a clear-cut victory in 2000.

On the record, concentrating on what some people think are "core" states rather than pursuing a 50-state strategy has proven to be a Democratic recipe for failure.

Why should we believe what hasn't worked in the past will work this time around? Faith? Hope? Charity? None of these are practical strategies.

[JackWOrf]

What cost Gore the election in 2000 was that he WASTED TIME on the popular vote, rather than focusing exclusively on the electoral vote, as Bush did.

Gore won the pop vote by 5 million. So what? He lost.

If he had put a little more money and energy into FLORIDA he would have won.

Example: Gore should have had workers INSPECTING every county ballot! And IDIOT would have seen that the "butterfly" ballots in Palm Beach county were going to be a disaster. But apparently Gore was off getting more pop votes that didn't matter.

Another example: He should have moved Hell and High Water to get RALPH NADER to stay the (f-word) away from Florida!!! Interestingly, Nader had SAID, a week before the 2000 election, that he WOULD stay away from Florida in the final week. But he DIDN'T.

Moral of the story: PAY ATTENTION TO A-HOLES!!!

If Nader had stayed away from Florida in the final week before the election of 2000, Gore would have gotten a couple thousand more votes, and he would have been President of the USA (and a GOOD one) for the past 8 years.

Moral of the story: It is NOT the delegates, stupid. It is the ELECTORS. Focusing your energy on the pop vote is a waste of time and money which will cost you the election.

[racom]

Who does your fact checking, limbaugh? Gore did win the popular vote, the election was stolen but Gore did not win even his home state. 2000 would have been an easy win except for Clinton's open fly and Gores lame campaign. Time to quit blaming Nader.

[markkraft]

Barack Obama is energizing these states and turning previously red states into states that are now in play for the Democrats, so obviously that matters.

It also matters that he polls significantly better against McCain than Hillary Clinton.

Lastly, you are overlooking the significance of Barack Obama's ability to mobilize voters in ways that will help to bring Democrats into power in a whole host of red states.

Answer me this: How is Hillary Clinton going to get mandated "We'll garnish your wages" healthcare passed if all she has supporting her are a bunch of liberal state members of Congress? The Clinton era was *HORRIBLE* for the Democrats in the House and Senate, and, given the Clinton campaign has intentionally ignored the red states, I don't see this as changing anytime soon.

Sticking with a "battleground states" mentality is a sure way to institutionalize a permanent loss of the Senate, and, most likely, to lose presidential elections over time too. Behaving in a manner where every state matters is how the Democrats can reverse this trend, and win back a real mandate for change.

[BenMurphyNYC]

Why do we manadate Car Insurance?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Can you choose NOT to have the fire department show up?

[woodchips]

You can mandate car insurance, because most people get to choose whether they drive or not. You can't choose to avoid illness. Forcing people who can't afford health insurance to buy it is only enriching the insurance companies at the expense of those who are already drowning financially.

[Ankhst]

because auto insurance companies have a LOT of money

[joebaggadonuts]

Voter turnout may shift the red states bluer. Depends on the economy. Stop shopping.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

ROFL.
Screw the vote-buying "recovery" package.
Pay off your credit cards.
Anything left? Buy Euros.