The Economist thinks that this year, instead of red and blue states, the electoral map could be drenched in purple. USA Today ran a similar piece this week. It has been a recurring theme in the media coverage of the campaign. But there is probably less there than meets the eye.
Dan Collins reminded me recently of electoralvote.com, so I should have thought of this before someone flagged it for the Politico. Here is the site’s electoral vote projection (based on recent state polling) for May 28, 2008 (Obama 266; McCain 248; Ties 24):
And here was the site’s electoral vote projection for May 28, 2004 (Kerry 327; Bush 211):
The “Votemaster” has tweaked the methodology slightly in the interim, but not enough to affect the general discussion here. Although I am as fond as anyone of the old sayings about polls being snapshots and a week being a lifetime in politics, I note in passing that for all of those caveats, the May-June polls in 2004 correlated pretty well to the November results. Obviously, Kerry did not win 327 electoral votes, but the difference between that May 28, 2004 projection and the actual vote comes from just a handful of states: Iowa, Missouri, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Mexico.
A glance at the two maps shows their large similarities and interesting differences. Barack Obama seems more competitive in the Mountain West (as Democrats have predicted they would generally, based on the changing demographics in the region), while McCain seems more competitive in the Upper Great Lakes.
However, balancing the demographic trends against the electoral history in these states, if I was forced at gunpoint to make a forecast, I would suspect that Wisconsin and Michigan would revert back to Obama. Indeed, the Politico’s Ben Smith smartly observed that the latest SurveyUSA poll of Michigan has McCain up 4%, but has Obama winning only 62% of the black vote, which seems… unlikely.ÂÂ
History and demographics suggest Indiana will likely revert back to McCain, despite the proximity of Illinois.
Virginia really does seem to be up for grabs, as the state has tbeen rending blue in recent gubenatorial and senatorial elections for demographic reasons. But the state has has not gone blue for president since 1964 and still has plenty of veterans (which is why Sen. Jim Webb finds himself in Obama’s veepstakes), so Virginia probably stays in the red.
Making those changes to the electoralvote.com May 28, 2008 map would put Obama at 269 votes. If Obama wins Virginia, McCain would have to hold onto Ohio or take Michigan to win. There is little room for error by either side, which is why you will see them fightng hard over small states like Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico. It is also why Democrats may ultimately regret putting themselves at a disadvantage in states Bill Clinton won, like Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas (19 electoral votes in total).
Nevertheless, we are ultimately going to be looking at some universe of about 12 states. We may not know exactly which 12 states today, which is what (along with the need to fill time and space) causes the media to write about a purple map. And it is fun to speculate about whether a marriage amendment in California or a “personhood” amendment in Colorado will shake things up (and if so, how). But the reality is that we know most of the 12 states, with the rest becoming fairly apparent by the time the nominating conventions arrive. One lesson to be learned from the Democratic campaign is that the demographics of a state are key; in most cases those demographics do not change dramatically in four years. States like Virginia and Colorado have become more purple over the course of several cycles. Absent some unforeseen event, the rest of the results will likely depend more on broad issues like the economy, the war and the personal qualities of the nominees.
(h/t WLS at Patterico.)
If McCain hands Obama his ass in the debates, you’ll see those blue-outlined states and Wisconsin change colors pretty quickly, I think.
I think the ” Sleeper” state is New Jersey. In 2004 Kerry had 1.9 Million votes and Bush 1.6 Million. Here in NJ when we think ” Culture of Corruption” we think Dems. Corzine has spend his time in office assaulting the poor and middle class with every possible tax increase any Dem could think of similar to Gov Kaine in Virginia. The eastern part of the state has tens of thousands of the more conservative New York City transplants from areas like Staten Island which tend to be more conservative. McCain is similar in some ways to moderate Repub former Gov Tom Kean .
Bob Barr could make Georgia competitive (or at least expensive.) New Jersey is hampered by Democratic Party corruption, but the GOP hasn’t exactly shown its mettle in that state which is part of why the Dems got away with everything they did. This is going to be an overall down year for the GOP, with the House going more Democratic and the Senate heading toward a point where the Dems will let Lieberman go (but not if they get 59 Dems, which won’t happen anyway.) Blacks and young people aren’t reliable, but I’ve heard quite a bit this year about those grumpy Republicans who would rather sit this one out. I see a definite edge this year to the Dems.
And as for McCain handing Obama his ass: we’ll see. McCain couldn’t beat Bush, so what’s he going to pull out against Obama? His unpleasant side? His mean streak? Obama will look better, sound better, and have the more popular ideas. McCain can only rely on Iraq (not a big gainer,) Iran (which is not going to do anything stupid, so if anything is going to happen before the election it will be our doing, which will probably be a big loser for the GOP,) and Afghanistan (where Obama actually comes across as the more hawkish candidate.)
I guess McCain can go against gay marriage, but his voting record on that isn’t going to make him many friends. And abortion won’t win this election, either. McCain can’t win on energy, spending, taxes, healthcare, economics, GI bills, housing, infrastructure, or anything else since his long Congressional career has had only election spending as a bill with his name on it. Obama has about as many accomplishments (by which I mean: fucking few,) but he doesn’t have a long career of hardly any accomplishments. McCain is all tough talk, no action, and had plenty of years to accomplish something. Obama is also tough talk, no action, and will probably get four years to try it out.
jon,
McCain, I think, has knowledge. Obama has impressions. That tends to show in debates, but it shows better in some formats than in others.
I guess McCain can go against gay marriage
Funny. And Baracky’s position on this today is … ? Even more interesting, is to see the difference between Baracky’s position and President Bush’s position, unless this has evolved as well.
Kerry couldn’t beat him and Gore couldn’t either, and that was in a general election, not a primary. He must be a real electoral dynamo.
Corzine has spend his time in office assaulting the poor and middle class with every possible tax increase any Dem could think of similar to Gov Kaine in Virginia.
Kaine was elected due largely to the increase of left leaning constituents here in the northern part of the state, and because no “good deed” goes unpunished, this action was rewarded by adding new taxes applicable only to the part of the state that gave him his gig. As is usual, infrastructure needs in NoVa are ignored. The whole thing would make me laugh, except I happen to live here.
This model wouldn’t fly as much in other states, but our governors are limited to one term.
Regarding gay marriage. Obama is likely to not make it a huge priority, because he can read a map, well at least I suspect he can.
Education Guy – That, and the fact that his prior positions vary very little from President Bush’s.
Regarding debates, I’ll concede that on the stump, McCain doesn’t overwhelm you with polish. But any debate between them will not be Kennedy-Nixon all over again.
As someone suggested, McCain has a ton of institutional knowledge and Obama simply doesn’t. I think Obama is a lousy extemporaneous speaker. He spends so much time measuring his words that he comes across like Rainman.
Columbia undergrad, Harvard Law grad, editor of the Harvard law review. Great. Send Obama to contemplate his navel in the law library. He was a trainwreck in the ABC debate. Leave aside the cultural questions, he really was pathetic addressing the policy questions. Charlie Gibson made him look like a fool talking about taxes, and Obama looked only slightly better a week or two later on Fox with Chris Wallace.
Kick his a**, McCain.
Bob Barr could make Georgia competitive (or at least expensive.)
No freaking chance in @#$%.
I bet a thousand dollars to ANYONE who wants to go against the notion that McCain will easily carry Georgia. A cool grand. Anyone?
Folks, Georgia is a solid red state, now.
Barr didn’t resign from congress, he LOST A PRIMARY ELECTION for a house seat against John Linder for the safest Republican seat in the state. Meaning: he couldn’t even win the conservative votes in the most conservative district in the state. And, it wasn’t close. Further, he moved from his ‘old’ district (mine, by the way) as it was redrawn by the state Democrats that were on their seventeen thousandth consecutive year of rule in the state (okay, it was since reconstruction so really only around 140 consecutive years, but it seemed that long). We Georgians know that the redrawing of the maps, while not a ‘huge’ deal by itself, was the proverbial last straw that former-state-speaker Tom Murphy and company put on the backs of the voters and the state surprised everyone by ousting then-Gov Roy Barnes and Saxby Chambliss ousted Max Cleland & shortly thereafter a bunch of state pols switched parties because they saw that the state had FINALLY become a majority Republican state.
By the way, Bob Barr also ran for the senate in ’92. Didn’t make it out of the primaries as he lost the the more moderate and pro-choice Paul Coverdell, who eventually ousted Wyche Fowler. So, that means that Barr’s only state-wide campaign saw him losing to a moderate in the primary & his last congressional primary saw him lose on the scale that Keith Olbermann does every night versus Bill O’Reilly.
Yeah, we Georgians aren’t very fond of liberals, any more, but an anti-war candidate whose primary platform includes running away from Iraq – which he voted FOR, by the way – and getting rid of the patriot act – which he voted FOR, by the way – has as much of a chance of causing McCain to get less than 53% of the vote than Obama has of getting less than 95% of the black Fulton county vote (Atlanta).
Bob Barr will do nothing to McCain easily garnering the 15 electoral votes. Those writers positing otherwise are dealing in fantasy.
–
I think the †Sleeper†state is New Jersey.
I hear that #$%* every election and every election the corrupt Dem wins by > 5 points. EVERY time. They elected Lautenberg after the state Dems basically told the voters “yeah, we’re breaking the rules, but @#$& them and @#$% you, we need that senate seat”. Every time. I heard the “Forrester could be the conservative that wins NJ” stuff, and once again, NJ voters were as reliable as Harlem voters. In short, I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then, NJ is safely blue and their residents deserve the corrupt pols that they elect.
I was saying gay marriage wasn’t anything McCain should have relied upon, not that Obama has a magic ointment for the nation (it’s like Obama is for federalism on the issue while not being for restrictive policies back in his home state, which makes him unlike McCain who is for federalism–voted against Constitutional amendment–but campaigned for anti-civil-union proposal in Arizona.) There’s a contrast, and if it’s made it will hurt McCain more than Obama.
Back to debates: what’s McCain going to do? His record and his rhetoric don’t match, while Obama’s rhetoric has no record. Advantage: Obama. Plus, I think McCain is much more likely to get wonkish points wrong (like Shiite/Sunni mix-ups,) and in those debates it will matter. Their policies are what they are (actually McCain’s are like Bush’s, only less fiscally-sound,) but Obama is just the better salesman. When he says, “Do you want more years like these?” the answer is not likely to be a resounding “Yes!”
Yeah, but how much of their margin of victory comes from real voters? I’d bet not much, if any.
: what’s McCain going to do? His record and his rhetoric don’t match, while Obama’s rhetoric has no record. Advantage: Obama.
“Senator Obama, you are on record as supporting driver’s licenses for illegals. Do you maintain that view or have you recently switched in order to maintain presidential status?”
“Senator Obama, you are on record as supporting taxpayer financed abortions without restrictions. Do you maintain that view or have you recently switched in order to maintain presidential status?”
“Senator Obama, you are on record as being against any and all sanctions against any and all abortions, including partial birth abortions. And, you are on record as being against parental notification if their 12 year old daughter gets an abortion. Do you maintain those views or have you recently switched in order to maintain presidential status?”
“Senator Obama, true or false: you called for the dismantling of America’s nuclear weapons system after 9/11. Do you maintain that view or have you recently switched in order to maintain presidential status?”
=
As Hillary found out (16 years too late, for her), eventually someone may ask a question that isn’t flattering.