May 29, 2008
Electoral post
I haven't posted much about this election: I generally have better things to do. But something has been bugging me for a few weeks now, and this morning I finally had the time to sit down and look at the numbers. What I discovered was that Obama's primary victories are almost all in states the Democrats aren't going to win in November. It's all well and good that Obama trounced Clinton in North Carolina but there were almost exactly the same number of votes cast in the primary as were cast in favor of John Kerry in 2004, and the Democrats lost that state by 400k votes, a 13 point spread.
Same with South Carolina. Obama got 295k of the 532k votes cast, but the Democrats lost that state by 270k votes, a 17 point spread. Georgia too. Obama won 704k of the million votes cast--an electoral rout by any reasonable standard--but Kerry lost by 550k votes, a 16 point spread. Obama won Louisiana by almost 90k votes, a 22 point spread, but Kerry lost it by 280k votes, a 15 point spread.
Meanwhile, if you look at states that the Democrats are going to win in the fall, they line up pretty neatly in Clinton's camp. She took California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey by comfortable margins. She also won the major swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and the importance of that can't be underestimated.
There are a few outliers, but those aren't all encouraging. Washington is definitely a feather in his cap, as that state will definitely vote for the Democrat in the fall. So will Illinois, but as that was Obama's home state, it's not surprising he won there.
Let's be realistic: people in reliably Red states--particularly in the South--aren't necessarily happier about the war, the economy, or massive federal fiscal irresponsibility than anyone else is (Congress has an even lower approval rating than the President), but they aren't going to vote for either Democratic candidate in the fall. Both Clinton and Obama, and particularly Obama, represent the far left wing of the Democratic party, and that dog won't hunt in Alabama. It may be closer than it was last time, but the electoral map is going to look a lot like what it did in 2004. Obama is winning Republican states and losing Democratic states in the primary. He isn't going to win Republican states in the fall. Clinton may well wind up being the better candidate.
Result? With Barack Obama the all-but-presumptive Democratic nominee (Slate gives Clinton a 0.5% shot today), the Democrats may well lose this fall. The damage to the party could be incalculable.
Doesn't this presume that zero Clinton voters would go for him in November?
What about Travis Childers' Democratic victory in Mississippi?
No, it doesn't, and that's kind of my point: even if Obama had won 100% of the vote in the states that he's won, the total number of votes cast for him in each of those states would be about the same as the number of votes cast for Kerry in 2004, who lost all of those states by wide margins. Granted, things are not the same now as then, but I don't think Obama can beat the double-digit spreads in those states.
Childers is about as far right as you can get and still be a Democrat: pro-gun, pro-life, anti-tax. Yes, his foreign policy is at odds with the current administration, but you don't have to be a Democrat for that to be true. I don't think it means all that much.
Posted by: ryan at May 29, 2008 12:00 PMMcCain hardly poses a threat to Obama in Clinton's MA, CA or NY strongholds. Her line that she's the better candidate because she won primaries there doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
As for beating double-digit spreads from 2004, I think that's exactly what the Obama camp (and Democrats in general) are hoping he can do. Reaction to the prolonged war, Katrina, gas prices and a recession might be enough to tip more Republicans in their favor. Comparisons to previous elections might be misleading here because there's never been a black candidate, and it's tough to say how this might impact the final result (especially if hard-core conservatives how dislike McCain just stay home). I'm not saying he could win the deep south--there aren't enough blacks there. But border states might be up for grabs, especially in places where urbanization has drawn more Democrats.
I mentioned the Mississippi race because the 2nd district voted heavily in favor of Bush in 2004--a yardstick you use as well. Conservative or not, he's still a democrat who won in a deeply red state. More importantly, I mention it because Childers' opponent tried to tar him with associations to Obama and Jeremiah Wright. The fact that that strategy backfired seems to bode ill for Republicans.
See, people are talking about this massive sea-change in politics that Obama supposedly heralds. I just don't see it or buy it. The electoral map in 2008 is going to look pretty much like it did in 2004. If Obama wins, it will be because enough people in places like Ohio and Florida who could have gone either way last time vote for him instead of McCain.
I'm not saying that's impossible by any means. The difference in Ohio was only 120,000, less than 5%. Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico were close too. I think a Democratic victory in those states is entirely plausible. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Obama represents some kind of utopian, post-partisan paradigm shift. He's as partisan as everyone else is, and more than most. He can't simply wave that away.
Posted by: ryan at June 1, 2008 06:19 PMwhat makes Obama partisan? becasue if he is, he's basically deceiving the people since he's selling himself as being the non-partisan, "change" candidate.
Posted by: j. Cave at June 2, 2008 12:23 AMFor starters, his voting record. And yes, I'd say he is basically deceiving the people.
Posted by: ryan at June 2, 2008 08:40 PM