|
||
Obama's Path to Victory in November
With Obama inching ever closer to clinching the Democratic nomination, some of his opponents have resorted to a campaign aimed at convincing superdelegates that, no matter how much they like him, "Obama just can't win."
In fact, the odds are good that Obama will win the Presidency. And if Democrats execute with precision during the campaign, the odds are good that he will win with a healthy margin. Here's why:
If the election were held today - before the campaign begins - polling shows that he would have very high odds of winning states with 273 electoral votes, more than the 270 needed to win election. More importantly, he would win this victory without needing the states of Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia or Florida.
The people at the website www.fivethirtyeight.com have created a statistical model to predict the odds that a candidate will win each state in the general election. The model is based on a regression analysis of recent polling and sixteen additional political and demographic factors. It assigns a likely vote spread and the numerical odds that a particular candidate will win the state. The model updates its findings regularly based on recent polling data from the state.
As the campaign begins, the model predicts that 22 states, with a total of 273 electoral votes, will go for Obama. These include the obvious states of California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon and most of New England. They also include swing states like New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania. As it happens, the model predicts that Obama's odds of victory are no lower than 63% in any of these states.
But the model also shows that a number of additional states are right at the tipping point for Obama. Obama's odds of winning Ohio's additional 20 electoral votes are about even, at 49.8%. His odds in Nevada are 46%. His odds in New Hampshire are 45%. If he adds these three states, his total increases to 302 electoral votes.
These are the numbers before the general election campaign begins. They are based on what voters say they will do today, and on voter turnout assumptions that generally reflect past elections. They are, in other words, based on past behavior. While it is true that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, it is the job of a political campaign to change that behavior. After all, if a campaign were not about changing the behavior of the voters, we should all just go to the beach for the next five months instead of knocking on doors, raising money, making speeches and all the rest.
And the odds are that this campaign, as it unfolds, will result in an even wider Obama victory.
The more people get to know Obama, the more likely it is that he will get their support. But the more they know about McCain, the less likely they are to vote his way.
Polling shows that McCain substantially outperforms a generic Republican candidate in the presidential contest. Though the Bush legacy has greatly tarnished the Republican brand, many people start out thinking that McCain is not a standard-issue Republican. Instead they view him as a "maverick," an "independent."
The problem is that the more they get to know him, the more they learn that on most of questions that really matter, especially trickle-down economics and neo-con foreign policy, McCain and Bush are twins. After all, as a Senator, McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time.
In our polling, as people learn about McCain's record of supporting Bush's policies, they begin to drop him quicker than you can say McBush.
Every time Bush attacks Obama the way he did last week before the Israeli Knesset, he does Obama a huge favor. Anything that ties Bush to McCain - including his current fundraising tour for McCain - is a blessing. One of the campaign's biggest jobs will be to keep Bush in the message frame.
People behave just the opposite as they learn more about Obama. Obama's initial problem with some swing voters is that while they know he is charismatic, they are worried whether he is safe enough - whether he is really like them - whether he's really on their side. Barack Obama is a likable, engaging person. The more that voters know of him, the more that they see his family, the more that he becomes part of their everyday experience - the more comfortable they become with him.
In Illinois, where the voters know him best, the same demographic groups that are skeptical elsewhere give him their support.
Obama's campaign will change the electorate. It will massively increase turnout among minorities and young people.
Based on past history, Ohio has even odds of going for Obama. What happens if there is a huge spike in turnout among African Americans and young people? Obama takes Ohio by a respectable margin. The fact is that there is no plausible scenario where McCain wins in November that does not involve Ohio.
In the fall, Hispanics will not break as heavily for Obama as African Americans, but they are likely to give him a two-to-one margin. Increased Hispanic voter turnout in Nevada will tip that state for Obama and guarantee big margins in Colorado and New Mexico.
I believe that big increases in the African American and youth vote will also place a large number of other states into play including Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. By placing these traditionally Republican states into play this fall, the Obama campaign will force the Republicans to play defense on their home turf and spread their resources. When you're on the defense, you're losing. No traditionally Democratic state will really be in play.
Obama's massive small-donor fundraising base will give his campaign a huge advantage on this new, wider playing field.
In this political environment, Obama's persona and message will resonate with swing voters. Eighty percent of the voters think that America is on the wrong track. Obama is change. McCain is the past.
From the beginning of his primary campaign, Obama has had one consistent message: change you can believe in. He appeals for unity not division, for hope instead of fear, and to the fundamental premise that we're all in this together, not all in this alone. This resonates with voters tired of the division, fear and selfishness of the Bush years.
Finally, Obama's ability to inspire is a massive general election asset. Not only will it motivate his base, it will also attract independents and Republicans in record numbers. The reason is simple: when someone is inspired they feel empowered. People of all sorts want to be empowered; they want to have meaning in their lives. They want to be part of something big and important and historic.
The one thing we have learned again this year is that anything can happen in politics and those who predict with certainty will almost certainly be wrong. But if we set aside our cynicism - if we commit ourselves to victory this fall - I believe that we will all be part of something historic.
I believe that Barack Obama can win by more than 300 electoral votes and 54% or more of the popular vote. I believe that Democrats can take another 25 seats in the House and five to seven seats in the Senate. I believe that this could be a transformational election of the sort that happened last in 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt launched the New Deal that made America the most prosperous society in human history, and committed our country to all of his famous "Four Freedoms:" freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
And what's most exciting is that more than any election in modern political history, this election will be decided less by the strategies of a few political consultants than by what millions of everyday political activists do to make their mark on history over the next 161 days.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book, Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com
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
This whole thing becomes moot if Obama teams up with Webb. The Hillary gals will flock to Webb, if not Obama, because he exudes strength and confidence. Plus, it will be reassuring to the doubtful masses of Dems to know that Webb is in the wings, covering Obama's back.
A win-win situation for everyone.
The analysis ignores the many Clinton supporters, and especially women voters that will stay home if Obama is the nominee and Hillary is not on the ballot.
As Ann Coulter has mentioned, if women were denied the right to vote, Republicans would win every Presidential election.
The scorched earth attacks bent on forcing Hillary aside will have resounding effects in November.
You hit the nail on the head. So much of the Obama appeal is his rhetoric that they sometimes seem to think if they articulate a position, it will happen. In reality, Obama is not in a good position to win in November. I'm one of the 17+ million who will not be voting for him but working and voting for my local representatives in expectation that McCain will win the presidency.'Scorched earth' is perfect - the few Obama followers who are awake to the impact of this policy are tentatively trying to make nice (not on this blog, of course, but on some) - but the overtures are too late.They've banked on the magic of great rhetoric that masks con man - the man who called Nancy Pelosi 'cutie' - to win us over after eviserating us repeatedly with open rage. Keith Olbernamm is their spokesman - he is Obama's spokesman.
Scorched earth? It was Hillary Clinton who has been using a scorched earth policy to deligitimize Obama. What have you been smoking?
What about the voters that voted against Obama versus for Hillary? Whoare they going to vote for if Hillary becomes the nominee? It may be more voters than you think. Ask Mr Limbaugh.
The post from FOLYRC - copied below - is the kind of thinking that really depresses me:
Are we really meant to believe that there is an actual group of women out there so angry because their candidate - by running an astonishingly negative and disorganized campaign - is likely to lose?
And then, out of ...what?..spite? they would willingly vote for McCain - a man who sought and embraced the endorsement of the worst kind of hate-mongering far-right evangelists, a man who is not willing to end a bloody, pointless war, and a man who will make it his pet project to stack the Supreme Court against the rights of women?
Why would anyone vote so blatantly vote against common sense and self-interest?
_________________________________________________________________________
From FOLYRC: "You're right about the MSM throwing the election however they see fit, but you're wrong
about the women. They're really pissed....I know as I'm one of them. I'm an Independent and I've voted
strictly Democratic since Clinton's first term, but this time, unless Obama convinces me somehow that
he doesn't share Wright's beliefs, I will vote for McCain"
___________________________________________________________________________
You would never vote for him anyway. Using Wright as your excuse when Obama has repeatedly disavowed the more troubling aspects of Wright's views, is your way of saying that you won't vote for him. Actually, on most issues he and Senator Clinton are not that far apart, and do you really want to vote for McCain and a 3rd Bush term?
Good points but I would throw in the candidacy of Bob Barr. He won't be a force nationally but if, as many suggest, record black turnout puts states lie Georgia into play, then Barr in his home state could swing it to Obama with only 2 to 4 percent of the vote. As for those who think Hillary would be stronger and attract independents and Republicans, Obama does better in those groups than she does and - this fact is never mentioned - her negatives are the highest of any candidate ever! Why people think anyone with those kinds of numbers looks viable is beyond me.
Bob, you just convinced me with your excellent and level-headed analysis. For once my candidate has the odds on his side. I have to pinch my arm, this is no longer just a dream. What needs to be done now is a flawless campaign and a flood of donations. If, as you say, past performance is the best predictor for future performance, Obama and his campaign will pull it off.
A revolution every 75 years: Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and now, Obama!
Bob, YOU SCREWED UP THE MATH from FiveThirtyEight.com!
Obama CANNOT win "without needing the states of Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia or Florida." Looking at the states currently (as of 5/29) shown as Obama favored shows the following:
Kerry won 252 electoral votes. Adding states Obama would win that Kerry lost:
Iowa +7
Colorado +9
New Mexico +5
Total: +21
Add 21 to Kerry's total of 252 = 273 - Victory.
BUT Obama is currently LOSING in some Kerry states:
Kerry states that McCain is leading according to current FiveThirtyEight.com analysis:
New Hampshire - 4
Michigan -17
Total: 21
Too close to call: Ohio.
NO WAY can Obama win "without needing the states of Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia or Florida."
In fact, Obama would desperately need Ohio to win. He's losing badly in Florida and it doesn't look like he'll be competitive there, and he's behind by 6 or more points in Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada and Indiana, all states where Obama hoped to "expand the field."
I'm an Obama supporter, but if the election were held today, he'd have a 49.4% chance of winning Ohio, and therefore the election -- according to very FiveThirtyEight.com analysis you cite!
He desperately needs to pull ahead somehow to have a hope of winning. As of now, this election is tracking to be an almost exact re-run of 2004. With Bush winning a 3rd term. I can't stand it!!!!
Kugel, your math is correct, but so is the math of the 538.com, which has Obama winning. I do think that Bob completely misunderstood the mathematical model, but he lucked out on the conclusion. So here's my take, but I may be wrong since 538.com does not explain its method in sufficient detail to reconstruct the analysis: 538.com uses what is called a Monte-Carlo model, carrying out 10,000 elections with the outcome in each state random, but with a likelihood distribution equal to that of the weighted percentages he finds from the polls and other data points. As an example, if Obama's likelihood of winning Montana is 14%, he will win there in 1400 of the simulated 10,000 elections. After that 538.com averages the results of the 10,000 elections and comes up with the electoral votes outcome that is given on the top of the page. This method is widely used for scientific and financial applications, so it has some justification in still being in use after many confrontations with the eventual real world data.
Thank you for an excellent article, Bob. I fully agree.
I campaigned in PA. for Senator Obama. I found that all us volunteers were dedicated, knowledgeable and hard working. I have been an Obama supporter from the beginning and changed from a Republican to a Democratic. I have been a victim of Washington politics for too long and I agree when Lou Dobbs, on CNN, says "Throw the incumbents out of office".
We Americans have a historic opportunity to elect a President who understands our problems and has proven he is concerned about us and capable of changing Washington politics. Take this opportunity, folks, get involved in the OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT campaign like I have.
Posted by a concerned American.
OBAMA 08
Hillary could win but Obama will lose. Here's why:
1. Democrats acknowledge that Hillary is more like a republican. She will attract the independent voters and they decide the election. Some republicans would cross over for Hillary...especially women.
2. We don't know Obama. Everyone has negatives and he just hasn't had a chance to make too many blunders. He gets alot of passes and anyone who doesn't see it is just being blinded by the light.
3. We don't know who the VP will be but if McCain picks a good one he/she will be the presumptive next president.
4. Barack Obama is the new McGovern. McCain is no Nixon or Reagan but he is more middle of the road than Obama and middle of the road gets elected.
1. She'd lose independents and moderates, who are far more important. But they like Obama.
2. The gaffes he has made have been pretty minor. I'm confident going forward with him as the nominee.
3. And if Obama picks a good one, that could be even more of a draw.
4. I agree middle of the road gets elected, which is why Obama's VP pick will be very important.
The reason Obama will Win, And Win big. Is because for the first time in a very long time we will have a President who was raised the hard way. He was not born into, or married into money or power, but grew up like most Americans, Struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Obama was raised by a single white mother who at times was on Food Stamps. As a son of a poor single mother, I know how hard this can be. A Leader who knows what it’s like to be a poor American is a dream I've been waiting for all my life. I am middle aged white Male in Florida, I don’t look at race or gender, I look at the person.
Finally, A President for the People who is actually from the People...
"We don't know Obama."
My Amish relatives know Obama by now. People in caves know Obama.
The geniuses who still think he's a Muslim, or a racist, or some other crazy thing are pretty much the same people who think the great flood was in 1776, and believe Jesus was a white guy who spoke English.
After five more months of campaigning, cats and dogs will know Obama. The only people left to support McCain will be racists and very, very low information voters.
I actually think we DONT Know Hilary. I for one thought I had a pretty good idea who she is then she started getting in bed with people like Karl Rove. Do you think that will improve her being able to bring the more liberal side of the party together. She talks about Obliterating Iran then you have the Iraq war. YOu also forget the fact that she is sixty has a long history of lies and DECIET thats one thing Obama has going for him HE IS YOUNG. He doesnt have a history of lies and deciet cause for one there isnt that much history. Hilary is touting that she will win in November? Really is she sure abuot that. Is she sure that she can get the majority of Obama supporters who are liberal activist young and African American. Couple that with her ability to galvanize republican and she will LOSE. But she is so delusional the fact if she could win SHE WOULD BE WINNING. Obviously they are a lot of people who prefer Obama thats why they voted for him. Then there are the repugs that voted for her to keep this going. Further even if I had a time machine that said Hilary could beat McCain I would still rather take my chance on Obama a once in lifetime leader Vs more of the SAME be it her or McCain.
Carol
Never mind the speculating. Look at the electoral map and all of these "If" articles are just that. If henny penny falls out of the sky and jack o lantern smiles Obama "could " be the winner.
The latest gallup tracking polls show Clinton up by 3 and Obama down by 3, a swing of 6% nationwide. Why is Obama ahead, MI and FL are not counted and he won the most delegates in strong Republican states. Todays eletoral map which you can find on www.electoral-vote.com tells a very compelling story. You need 270 votes to win. Hillary beats McCain ( no contest) 327 to 194 with Michigan with 17 votes as a tie. She picks up 9 states that went for Bush in 04 , Ark, FL,KY, MO,NV, NM,NC,OH,and WV. She loses one that went for Kerry in 04, namely Wisc.
Obama falls short by 266 to 248. Obama picks up 4 states that went for Bush, CO,IA, NM, and Ohio. He loses 2 states, Mich and Wisc. There are 2 tie states with 24 electoral votes , Indiana and Virginia. If Obama wins one of these , he's in. But that's a crap shoot because Bush won Indiana 60-39 and Virginia 54-45.
So ther you are dreamers. President Clinton is spot on when he calls Obama a crap shoot and the numbers prove it.
The country is about change and Hillary has never been a part of that movement. From the time she cased her vote for the war she was done. Yes she has brought some new voters to the table but Obama and his message has brought the most new voters. Hillary would struggle against McBush especially if he got his campaign together. Hillary and McBush are all about more of the same. Both of their times have come and past. McBush and Hillary will be done as politicians after this election season as voters have no interest in looking backwards only forward.
I agree with the conclusion of Mr. Creamer, that the more people learn about Obama, the more they will like him, and the more people learn about McCain, the more they will not agree with him.
I also think that Clinton could defeat McCain in the general election, although with a smaller margin of victory.
Democrats - execute with precision - isn't that an oxymoron?
Yeah, same vein as "herding cats"!
FiveThirtyEight.com also has Hillary beating McCain by 286 to 252 in the general election electoral map. You can't just write off Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia or Florida. Doing so would be equivalent to HRC not campaigning in states in the potomac primaries and caucus states. He has plenty of time to put at least one or two of those states in play. Obama won because of a 50 state strategy he should stick to it.
The ground game will function like a well-oiled machine. A million of us. That is the key. HRC and McCain have no ground game. I consider every minute I have spent as part of the ground game to be a privilege.
It seems like the main constructive criticisms of this post are 1) we will still need to win by a HUGE landslide to offset predicted cheating, 2) the latino vote isn't going to be strong and 3) Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama.
The first criticism is tragic! That we are even discussing the election in a way that assumes cheating is pretty amazing. Eight years ago I would never have dreamed we would have such massive cheating (in fact, the stealing of two presidential elections) let alone that we would be planning strategy around expected cheating.
I tend to think that, yes, we will need a massive win in order to counter the cheating, but also that the problems and the solutions to those problems are probably more nuanced than that. I am clueless as to what those nuances are, however. :-)
The latino vote: Hasn't Obama's numbers with that demographic improved greatly over the past several weeks (you know, when Hillary outed herself as being insane...)? I thought he was making huge headway there. And why would they vote for McCain, anyway? I don't get it.
And the Hillary voters/loyalists? Many of them hate her by now, anyway, and wish they could take their votes back. And for those who are still believers, holding a grudge against Obama supporters (for doing WHAT?) or Obama himself (what the hell has he done to harm Hillary, anyway?) will make no sense come November.
The demonising of Hispanics by the Republican party is likely to create a huge backlash, as it should. The Republican strategy of mobilising their base by encouraging hatred of hispanics will come home to roost this election.
Most Democrats will support whoever is nominated, despite the yelling of a few diehards and Republican trolls to the contrary.
There has always been a limited amount of cheating in American politics. Hopefully it won't be large enough to effect the election this time.
Personally, I think that the Democratic nominee will achieve a resounding success, and that the Republicans will find it difficult to block important legislation in Congress, as they are able to do today.
He has not improved in any vote yet. Puerto Rico is the next Latino vote testing ground. Hilary is expected to win, but the margin will be the key indicator. They would vote for Mcain because he supported the reform immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship. That is why he is not as radioactive as other repubs on this issue. I think the response to this article is not that Obama can't get these blocks but that these are weak areas that we need to correct before the general election. Using a self serving model makes one feel good, but can also lull one into believing that everything is Ok. If you work to penetrate these groups now, it will not look like pandering. If we wait till we are a month out to react it will.
iF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN STAND 4 OR EIGHT MORE YEARS OF ROVIAN NEOCON BUSHLIKE INSANITY, I WILL BE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE USELESSNESS OF HUMANITY. MORE THAN LIKELY RACISM LIKE THAT FESTERING IN PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, AND OTHER GODFORSAKEN POOR WHITE AREAS WILL ONCE AGAIN TRUMP SANITY AND COMMON SENSE AND THIS NATION AND THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL FALL INTO A PLANET ENDING CONFLAGERATION.,
Got a guy to bet me even money on this race.
I loved it even before reading this post.
Now, I love it more.
I'd like to take some of his money.
We no longer need Clinton or her supporters; we may not get the landslide we should have gotten, but we don't need Clinton and we can't use her, she has become poison.
Quit spamming. And YES we do need to Clinton supporters. Frankly I welcome them. Remember that R's are not above stealing elections, rigging voting machines, staging false protests, and using the Right-wing supreme court to their advatage. We cant settle for a nice 51% win. We need to win like 65-35 to ensure that the election can't be stolen this year. We need to the Clinton Camp to make that happen.
Don't be silly.
Of course we need them.
This is about including more people---not excluding them.
Yea, WE DO. However, if Clinton supporters think voting for McCain is the rationale choice, then God help them.
I'm sick and tired of what this country has come to. Who would have thought AMERICA would be in the condition it's in?
AMERICA?! We're starting to resemble 3rd world countries in a LOT of ways.
Republicans depress me. Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Rove, McCain - A bunch of RICH, ELITISTS who could care less - they're already loaded in dough, and doing just fine.
Do you really think McCain, and the republican establishment cares about common folk?
They do not.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
