At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong does not see the stars lining up for Sen. Barack Obama, asking, “what is Barack Obama’s winning coalition of states that puts him over 270 electoral votes?”
Kos calls the argument of his “good friend and partner” Armstrong “tired”:
Jerome is too smart to not know the answer. It’s easy:
Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, and Nevada.
Kos has two problems in making that argument. First, Armstrong was analyzing the Obama campaign’s own assessment of how Obama gets to 270, which mentions a different collection of states — Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Carolina. The Obama memo also mentions New mexico, Arizona and New hampshire, though it is not clear whether the Obama map relies on them. That Kos uses a different set of states does not necessarily make Kos wrong, but it does not make Armstrong’s analysis of the Obama memo wrong, either.
The second problems with the Kos analysis is the paucity of data supporting it. As noted yesterday, the most recent head-to-head polls show that McCain leads Obama by 51%-40% in Missouri, by 50%-43% in Ohio, and by 52%-40% in Virginia.  Although it was not mentioned yesterday, McCain currently leads Obama by 50%-41% in New Mexico. That is half of the states Kos suggests will get Obama to 270 in November.
Kos lists other states he believes might be “in play” this year as well. Although McCain underperformed in his home state of Arizona on Super-Duper Tuesday, I think Kos will have a tough time convincing people the state will be “in play.” Kos also names Kentucky, where, as noted yesterday, McCain leads Obama by 61%-32%. Kos mentions Montana (perhaps because Sen. Max Baucus is running for reelection), a state which went about 60%-40% for Pres. Bush in 2004 — without hard data, it seems a little iffy. He further mentions Florida, which is amusing, given that Kos earlier suggests that Florida is not a sure thing for Hillary.
Kos offers two more states of interest:
McCain is hated in Alaska for his position on ANWAR (sic). Obama is also against such drilling, of course, but they expect that out of a Democrat. A Republican who opposes it is a traitor. Alaska would be my sleeper call for 2008… West Virginia could be in play.
Kos does not say it, but I suspect he mentions West Virginia due to the McCain-Lieberman global warming schemes that have been floated in the Senate. That analysis may not hold up, but it is worth watching whether some of McCain’s Maverick positions cost him two states he might otherwise get.
Kos further suggests:
And if nothing else, Obama would help close the margin in a lot of Red states, forcing cash-strapped Republicans to play defense across something closer to a 50-state strategy than the inevitable 18-state strategy we’ll see out of Clinton.
This is single-entry accounting. As noted here yesterday, McCain potentially does the same in the Midwest and even states like Oregon and Massachusetts.
In short, the Kossack fails to make the case that the Astrologer is wrong to question Obama’s path to the presidency.
[…] torpedoed him yet in the primary? Or is this just laying the groundwork for later, in case McCain beats him in the battlegrounds in the general, to chalk the whole thing up to racism and delegitimize the Republican victor that […]
such drilling, he says. Whatever. I don’t get how McCain squares his ANWR fetish with this sort of thing…
When it comes to drilling, no means no.
On the other hand, when it comes to diverting water from its natural courses to supply the golfcourses of Arizona . . .
I agree, and some of the other states floated are ridiculous as well–South Carolina? However, I do find the idea of different electoral maps if the opponent is different rather interesting.
I’ll be on a blogger call with Senator McCain tomorrow and hope to ask him if there are strategic differences in the electoral map depending on whether he’s up against Hillary or Barack.
In a recent AP poll about 30% of the supporters of each of the Democrats said they’d vote McCain in November if their candidate didn’t make it. It may be pique, but if not, it certainly indicates that our existing ideas of what the election will look like and where it will be battled may be wrong.
Brainster,
If Mac tells you there are no strategic differences, panic.
I have to tell you Karl, trying to visualize the catfighting of nutroots hurts my brain.
It’s even worser when the nutoots go at it, Dan.
Obama is a gunbanner. This will become quite clear if he gets the nomination. At that point he’s lost the South, Southwest, and Mountain West.
Pete, you’re right on that. Obama is nassty gun controller. We don’t likes him much.
McCain joined the NRA, but is that enough to overcome this? So far, there’s no NRA/ILA endorsement of McCain.
Oh, for the yesteryears when I was a one-issue voter. Even with McCain-Feingold on his record, McCain will be defaulted the NRA’s support.
If I were still a one-issue balloter, there would be no question…
DAMNED NUANCE~!
Where’s the conflict? He’s also a defeatist on the Iraq War and a socialist.
I think Obama is going to have some problems in Florida after that little fiasco with the ‘Cuban flag with a side of Che’ at that Houston headquarters.
And I don’t think the explanation that ‘it isn’t official, its just the personal beliefs of those who support me’ is going to cut it.
McCain is not popular in Utah. If he puts Huckabee on the ticket, the state will go solidly for Obama, which should tell you something about the state of the GOP in 2008.
[…] we already know which states Kos thinks Obama can win in a general election to get to the magic 270 […]