When the dust settles on the Republican and Democratic primaries, the bottom-line for the nominees will be the Electoral College. George Bush won in 2004 with 286 electoral college votes to 252 for John Kerry. The only difference from 2000 was that Bush was able to narrowly flip New Mexico and Iowa, while John Kerry won New Hampshire. The deal breaker for Bush was the state of Ohio which he won 50%-48% over Kerry. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would be the President.
As we look forward to November, Obama or Clinton knows that in order to win, they have to hold all of the States Kerry won, and flip a few over to their side. Let's take a look at the possibilities:
The Ohio Strategy
The Democrats need to find 18 electoral votes to get the majority. The best strategy is to hold all of Kerry's states and win Ohio. This would give the Dems the clear victory at 271-267. The problem with the Ohio or bust strategy is that John McCain is going to win New Hampshire. McCain's ability to win New Hampshire trumps the Ohio flip and gives the GOP the win at 270-268. Besides, the New Hampshire factor, Ohio is a very conservative state, and even in 2004 with the turbulence of the Iraq war in the headlines, Kerry still lost by 2%.
The Florida Strategy
Again, this would be a deal breaker. If the Dems hold all of Kerry's states and win Florida, they win 277-261. Again, this seems unlikely. The Democratic party is a mess in Florida as they currently will have no voting delegates at the Democratic convention. That is not a good way to enthuse the Democratic base in the state. Also, McCain will have Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Mel Martinez campaigning for him across the state. GW Bush won the state 52%-47%. It seems unlikely that Obama or Clinton can overcome that deficit. Especially as McCain will be the darling of his fellow senior citizens.
The Iowa, New Mexico +1 Strategy
Al Gore won Iowa and New Mexico in 2000. Bush won by a shoestring in both states. The Dems have to see these states as places for major investment. If Clinton is the nominee she could easily try for Iowa, New Mexico and Arkansas. If she holds Kerry's states and wins these three, she would win 270-268. This scenario only seems likely for Clinton, and once Huckabee falls in line I am sure his campaigning would help deaden any Clinton enthusiasm in Arkansas. Remember Hillary is from Illinois, and she has almost a 10% margin to make up.
The Virginia Strategy
This plan would probably include Jim Webb or Tim Kaine as the Dems running mate. It would be an uphill battle, but a possible one. Along with Virginia they would need one more state like Iowa to secure the win. But even a Virginia plus Iowa strategy is thwarted if McCain wins New Hampshire.
The Youth Strategy
This is the most plausible path for Obama. This strategy is all about voter turnout especially among young voters. This could play a factor in numerous states, especially Colorado where CU-Boulder is one of the most liberal campuses in the country, but even if with huge voter turnout across the country among the youth, McCain will deaden that with strengths among the independent voters.
Note that there are still several very plausable tie scenarios in the above map! - Switch Florida to the Dems and Wisconsin to McCain to get 269-269. - Switch Iowa to the Dems and Minnesota to McCain to get 269-269. - Switch Iowa and Ohio to the Dems and Wisconsin to McCain to get 269-269.- Switch Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada to the Democrats to get 269-269.
What would happen in a tie in the electoral college? -- The Democrats would win, as they control more state congressional delegations by a small margin.
WHAT IS THE BOTTOM-LINE?
A Democratic win in November would be a dramatic upset! Unless, there is a major foreign crisis, a health emergency by McCain or an unpredicted act of God, the Democrats simply do not have a clear path to victory. Not only would they have to hold every state from last time, which is unlikely (esp. New Hampshire), they would have to couple together several other upsets. The most plausible would be an Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado combination, which Obama seems most likely to put together, especially if he picked Bill Richardson as VP. But, that would take a 4 point swing in Colorado and a hold of New Hampshire. If he loses New Hampshire the vote would be 269-269 and Obama would be President because of the House of Representatives.
In almost every scenario a McCain win in New Hampshire would thwart the Democrats. For that reason alone McCain should pick Romney as his VP. Romney would also buttress Nevada, and the midwest, and even bring Michigan into play.
It's time for the GOP to look at the facts, restore the optimism and race to a victory in November.
God Bless America!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Very interesting and sober analyis, but since it's written from a GOP standpoint, doesn't take into account the reality that many Rebuplicans and Independents who voted for GWB in 2004 won't be voting GOP again, whether they're right-wingers who despise McCain or Independents and Moderate Republicans who "won't be fooled again." Many Americans are no longer paralyzed by all of the fear-mongering the GWB administration and '04 re-election campaign was spouting and are desperate for change. Even McCain doesn't represent change, although he's definitely not a "Bushie" by any stretch of the imagination. www.monkeyinmymind.com.
Very insightful with only one problem. The tie information is incomplete and incorrect. The vice-president in a tie is elected by the Senate (currently held by the Dems) and currently the House has 25 Dem states 21 Rep states and 4 tied (do not vote). There are a few states with a majority of 1 for either party so that could change by the time the College would sit.
Sorry, calculated by hand incorrectly. 25 Dem 22 Rep 3 tied is the count.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money weny to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan
I think I trust Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the rest of the founders...Maybe you are smarter than them?
Post a Comment