# 85 The Electoral College Math

Yes, it's Math time again, but we're nearing the end of the campaign so I figured it's time to set out clearly what Barack Obama needs to do to win. I'm an Obama supporter (have already voted early for him) so, if you're a John McCain supporter, you can figure what McCain needs to do to win, by just not having Obama do any of the following.

In 2004, dubya won 286 electoral votes; John Kerry won 251 electoral votes. He should have won 252, but one of Minnesota's electors cast one of Kerry's votes for John Edwards. Since I believe Obama will win all of Kerry's states--even though McCain is still working hard in Pennsylvania--let's start with no defections, which means that Obama starts with 252 votes.

Any of the following combinations will win the presidency for Barack Obama:

1. The three western states that I have already put in Obama's column: NV (5), NM (5) and CO (9);

2. or the two very close southern states, one of which, VA (13), I've already put in Obama's column, and the other of which, NC (15) is currently leaning toward Obama;

3. or either one of the two really big Tossup states, OH (20) or FL (27).

Obviously, some mix-and-match combination would also win the election for Obama, and he is currently leading in most polls in six of these seven (FL seems to swing back and forth between Obama and McCain). But, on election night, if OH for example goes to Obama, the election is probably over, in keeping with my September 24 post, "It's Ohio." It doesn't have to be Ohio as the key state, however, since there are these other scenarios for his victory. As I've indicated more recently, Barack Obama could win the presidency without either Ohio or Florida.

I'm assuming no electoral defections and no split votes in Maine or Nebraska. The freak event in Minnesota four years ago is not likely to be repeated this year, unless Obama is so far ahead in electoral votes that a defection of a vote or two somewhere becomes irrelevant.

Obviously, given my previous posts' awarding of four of these states to Obama, I believe he will be elected. But with ten days remaining before election day, anything could still happen.

As always, I welcome your thoughts either as comment on this post or by email.

-- triton --

# 80 Are We Looking at 306 to 232?

Well, as I indicated last time, WV has shifted back to McCain, and now is even more strongly in the Red column. I'm not surprised. I am surprised that Ohio polling has Obama ahead by nine points(!), 51% to 42%. Frankly, I don't believe it.

Florida polling has McCain slightly ahead and, despite Obama's allegedly near-double-digit lead in Ohio, I'm still planning my electoral vote count with McCain winning both of those states. Nothing against Ohioans, "my friends," but I can't imagine the Ohioans who lived there when I was a graduate student at Ohio State (forty years ago, to be sure) voting for a black man. Well, yes, I guess I do feel something against Ohioans, at least those who in one poll last week tacitly admitted they were racist.

I still feel comfortable with my having placed CO, NV, and VA in Obama's column a few days ago. He maintains at least a 4% lead, and actually it's been fluctuating to as high as 10%, in those states.

So with two weeks to go, I still have Obama over 270 electoral votes. The surprise is his strength in what I have considered to be the two other Tossup states, MO and NC. Today's published poll has Obama ahead 49 to 44 in Missouri, and that's Rasmussen, reporting for Fox News, which is usually skewed in favor of McCain. In North Carolina, Obama's ahead 51 to 48. That doesn't leave a lot of Undecideds in that state.

I'm not willing to award either state to Obama, however. They're both within the potential Bradley (or Wilder) Effect, which is as high as 6%. Of course, Obama drew upwards of 100,000 people last week in St. Louis, and McCain drew downward of 2,000 soon thereafter in the same area.

Palin's the one who's drawing for the Republicans, but I'm not sure it's entirely due to her popularity. I think it's more like the crowds that gather around a train wreck, looking to see what damage has been done and what more might be done. In other words, I still think the negativity that has been imposed on Palin's speeches by her handlers has adversely affected the Republican ticket's support.

Right now, then, I still see it as Obama 291 and McCain 174. If I'm correct about OH and FL, and if even MO and NC go Red, it will be Obama 291, McCain 247. More likely, NC may go Blue and MO go Red: Obama 306, McCain 232.

In any case, my standard caveat is still in effect: there's no real way to determine how race will play out in this election. As fewer folk are listed as Undecided, my electoral numbers are based on what I hope is minimal racist influence. But, as they sing in "Porgy and Bess": "It Ain't Necessarily So."

-- triton --

#75 Why Isn't Anyone Talking About West Virginia?

On June 6 and September 24, John McCain led Barack Obama in West Virginia by 8 points in the Rasmussen Reports polls. In the polls between those two, the spread was smaller but McCain always led. Today (Oct 9), the Rasmussen Reports poll--which in state after state has consistently given McCain the highest poll numbers of all the poll takers--has Obama ahead by 8 points, 50 to 42. Maybe it's an error on the posting, and maybe McCain is actually still ahead by 8 points.

If it isn't an error, then Obama has gained 16 points on McCain in fifteen days. That doesn't sound possible. But if it's correct, it can only be the economy. West Virginia's miners and other hard-working citizens must be feeling the economic slowdown more than the other states, several of whose citizens have also gravitated toward Obama recently. Indiana, on the other hand, which had been a tossup, seems to be crawling back toward McCain, and the Idahos and Utahs of this country, and Texas and most of the deep south states, also seem to be solidly for McCain.

Florida, however, has a slug of new voter registrations, especially on college campuses, and those new voters are expected to favor Obama strongly. I suspect the same thing is happening in North Carolina, one of the few southern states where Obama is now expected to do very well, maybe even carry it in November. Virginia is another southern state that has been solidly Republican but that Obama could possibly carry, or at least do well in. He and McCain are both pouring money into all three of these states.

If Obama carries Florida or Ohio, by the way, I think the election is over. That is, as long as racism does not cause the 6 point drop between the polls and the voting that the recent Stanford study has indicated is historically the case.

These current poll numbers are all available at http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ which, however, lists only ten states as pro-Obama. In my post #74 I listed 21 states as being for Obama. They list 18 states as favoring McCain; I list 22 states for McCain. So either I'm too optimistic, or I've jumped the gun on some of these states, or the website is behind the times.

If the October 9 polling numbers are correct in West Virginia, then that website needs to update its assigning of states. The website still lists West Virginia as in McCain's column.

It will be fun (perhaps in a sick sort of way) to see what other changes occur over the next 25 days.

-- triton --

#69 It's still the economy....

Two debates down, two to go. But the debates--so far at least--haven't done much to change the direction of the election. "It's the economy...," to quote part of James Carville's mantra from eight years ago.

"Employers cut 159,000 jobs, most in more than 5 years; jobless rate holds steady," is today's AP online headline. And of course the stock market has been tanking, with its double-digit moves down and up--mostly down--for several weeks. This drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average, the S&P 500, Nasdaq and nearly every other indicator was foreshadowed months ago when the Dow Jones Utilities average broke below its 474 support level. It's at 415.52 as we begin trading today.

The economy has taken its toll on the Republican ticket, and probably not just on John McCain/Sarah Painful. If there is not a dramatic, and highly unusual movement upward in the next month (or a dubya-manufactured October surprise), expect Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate to increase significantly.

The economy hits home first and hardest and most obviously. People vote their pocketbooks. And many more people are unemployed and homeless today than a year ago, with unemployment up nearly 33% from the 4.6% average 2007 US unemployment. Banks and investment firms are going out of business, or are being bought up at bargain prices by their stronger former competitors; and over a trillion dollars was lost in one day in retirement accounts this past week.

McCain has all but pulled his support staff and advertising budget from Michigan, once thought to be a battleground state, conceding its 17 electoral votes to Obama. North Carolina is now a tossup; Pennsylvania--another battleground state--seems to be moving solidly toward Obama; Nevada and Colorado are battleground states, while New Mexico (which I moved weeks ago to the Obama side) now is more solidly Blue. Montana, on the other hand, seems pretty solidly a Red state again.

If NV and CO actually vote Democratic for president this year, Obama might not need to win Ohio, though I still don't trust the close polls, especially with a significant number of "undecided" voters out there.

But the economy has shaken things loose and shaken up the McCain campaign. We have 32 days until the election. Still anything can happen, but September and early October have been disastrous for the economy, and for the Republicans.

-- triton --

#67 States in Play

"Candidates' travels show it's all about Ohio" is the headline on Carrie Budoff Brown's Politico online article this evening.

And it's true that both Obama and McCain have spent more time there and in Florida than in any other state. Obama is also visiting Virginia and North Carolina far more frequently than John Kerry did four years ago, as he tries to make inroads into what his campaign clearly believes are vulnerable Red states. My question, rhetorical of course: if he's so concerned about trying to capture Virginia, why didn't he choose as his running mate the senator or the governor? Either Webb or Keane would really have put that state into play.

McCain is spending much time in Michigan and Pennsylvania, as he tries to woo moderate Republicans in the Philly suburbs, conservative Republicans in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, and Democrats disaffected with Governor Granholm's statewide economic problems in Michigan.

Both Obama and McCain seem to think that Iowa will go Blue this year, although McCain has added Iowa to his schedule recently, so he may see something there that the polls have not reflected. I think Obama needs to spend some time there as well, even though right now at least one poll has him with a nine point lead. Obama is also trying to bring New Mexico back to the Blue, and I see him succeeding there. But he has to work hard to keep Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the Democratic column. The polls fluctuate sufficiently in those four states that I don't trust them to reflect true Obama strength.

Obama also has to be careful not to keep neglecting New England (other than New Hampshire, which seems definitely in play). New Englanders are a proud people, and won't look kindly on being ignored, or taken for granted as Obama seems to be doing. Luckily, McCain's not spending much time there either (except for New Hampshire). If Obama doesn't spend some time in the other New England states, I'm concerned about an unpleasant surprise in New England on November 4.

Frankly, I think Obama is wasting his time in Florida. McCain has also spent a lot of time there, and every poll I've seen puts him pretty safely ahead of Obama. Barring something really unforeseen, I don't see that lead changing. Missouri's another state that, I believe, Obama currently has little chance of winning.

McCain probably can't win the election without Ohio, unless he takes both Michigan and Pennsylvania, and maybe Minnesota for good measure. McCain's strong collection of southern states, mountain states, and Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Texas base create a math that indicates that likely Obama can't win without it either.

Finally, then, as I've said before, It's Ohio.

-- triton --

#6 Ironically, I can't think of a catchy title for a post about the significance of choosing the right vice presidential candidate...

…perhaps, because, in the last century the VP candidate has been a kind of afterthought, an attempt to balance the ticket at least geographically and occasionally politically: FDR and Truman, Stevenson and Kefauver, JFK and LBJ, etc. That changed with Clinton/Gore, both southerners, though one was a governor, the other a senator.

This year, the choice for Vice President on the Democratic ticket will be essential for victory in November.

If we assume that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee by the end of the summer, the next question is, How can the Democrats persuade the 20% of the American public that isn’t automatically voting Democratic or Republican to swing to the left?

One way is for the Democrats to find a vice-presidential candidate to provide some political balance, not a far right conservative, but a legitimate centrist, who can (one hopes) prevent the Republicans from seizing the center of the political spectrum, as dubya was allowed to do. There has been nothing centrist about dubya’s policies, but he was allowed in 2000 to appear to be, and to claim to be, “in the middle.” Given the mess he’s made of EVERY aspect of his presidency, “in the muddle” is more appropriate.

The Democratic VP nominee also has to be from, or at least influential in, a narrowly-won blue state, or a red state with a significant electoral college number, or a few smaller red states whose total electoral votes are enough to tilt the election blue. The VP candidate has to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, and has to deliver his home state and additional states. And, yes, I wrote “his”: whether Obama or Clinton gets the nomination, the VP will probably be a male.

The best known political figures tend to come from the national stage, likely the Senate (rather than the House of Representatives, whose numbers dilute the possibility of any but the Speaker and Minority Leader from achieving much national attention). While governors may be more well known in their own states than on the national scene--except perhaps for actors from California, and the occasional charismatic if sexual-predatory personality--governors have been more successful in seeking the presidency than have sitting senators.

JFK was the last sitting senator to be elected president, and Warren G. Harding was the only other sitting senator to be elected president. James Garfield was elected to both the senate and the presidency in 1880, but declined the senate position to become president. By contrast, in the last seventy-five years FDR, Carter, Clinton, and dubya have all moved from the statehouse to the White House.

It is from these two groups, governors and senators, that the Democrats should look for a Vice Presidential candidate who will add strength to the fall ticket. John Edwards (yes, I realize that some of you liked him for this year’s presidential run) added nothing to the 2004 ticket. The personality he showed during 2007-2008’s early campaigning was yet undeveloped or, worse, missing in action in 2004, and he was unable to carry either his birth state (SC) or his elected state (NC). Together, those two states would have won the election for John Kerry. However, Kerry lost SC by seventeen percentage points, and NC by twelve and a half, so it may not have been possible for Edwards, even had he a stronger public persona at the time, to have affected those extreme results.

The Democrats in 2004 needed to have focused on a swing state, preferably a narrowly red state from 2000, to find a VP candidate who might have helped swing the election. In 2000, dubya won Missouri by fewer than 79,000 votes, putting Missouri in play for the Democrats in 2004. But in 2004, against the Kerry/Edwards ticket, dubya won Missouri by nearly 200,000 votes. I don’t know if Missouri’s own Dick Gephardt could have altered results, but he had national exposure (as former Speaker of the House and then minority leader), he had a lot of congressional experience, and he probably would have inspired more confidence in voters than John Edwards did at the time. Missouri alone would not have changed the outcome of the 2004 election, but Gephardt might have had a coattail effect. Edwards certainly didn’t. Gephardt should have been the Democrats’ VP candidate four years ago.

Next post: a look at Democratic governors, as we begin to examine specifically who might be an electable VP choice on the Democratic ticket.