So I was reading over some of Marc Ambinder's posts from June and came across a report that some McCain insiders believe they will NEVER be ahead of Obama in the popular vote and yet win the election (emphasis made by Ambinder). This thought process jives with Rick Davis's earlier statement to the effect that Obama's strategy was not one to win the general election and statements by other Republicans from traditionally red states laughing at the notion that Obama could turn their states blue. In other words, McCain's camp doesn't seem to have much respect for the "50 state strategy" as a general election strategy as it is more designed to win the popular vote, rather than the electoral college.
Unfortunately, I think there is some merit to the claims allegeldy made public or in secret by McCain insiders. I'd place the chances of Obama winning the popular vote at around 80% right now given his outstanding organization; however, I'd place his chances right now of winning the general election at 55%. Why so much lower?
If you look at the Rasmussen state polls, Obama is running up outrageous margins in the Northeast, Illinois, California, Minnesota and the Pacific Northwest as McCain is not within single digts, and in some cases not even within twenty points, in any of these states. Obama is also performing significantly better than previous Dems in the red states where he performed well in the primaries, though he is losing by the same margin as other non-Southern Dems in the red states won by Hillary Clinton). Why the "concern?"
The concern lies with the fact that he's up only five, when the lead should be much greater given Obama's overperformance in the tradionally blue and red states. What that indicates to me, and I could very well be wrong, is that he's underperforming, relative to his performance in the tradionally blue and red states, in the "swing" states, which accounts for why his lead is smaller than what it should be at this point.
People will argue that the benefit of the 50-state strategy is that McCain will be stretched out in terms of how much defense he will have to play. McCain's camp likely disagrees; Schmidt and company probably believe that they can keep red states such as North Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, North Dakota, Alaska, and Montana red with little to no defense as such states are so red, conservative, and stocked with Republicans that no matter how much time and money Obama invests in these states, they will stay red by 3-5 points regardless. As you know, losing by 3-5 counts the same as losing by double digits in the electoral college. To win even one of these states, Obama would need a 15-20 point swing, something that the McCain camp and some pubs likely find impossible. Thus, the number of states that McCain actually feels he has to defend vigorously may be close to the same number of states that Bush had to vigorously defend in 2004. The map may not have changed too much after all.
Without a doubt, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are true swing states and the McCain camp has acknowleged this reality. Obama should already have Iowa and New Mexico in the bag because they were Gore states in 2000. It's tough to get a handle on what either camp thinks about Florida and Missouri.
In conclusion, I'm not thrilled about Obama's 50-state strategy not because he's trying to turn really, really red states blue but rather, he's leaving out states that were staples to Big Daddy's big electoral college victories in 1992 and 1996: LA, AR, WV, and KY. Jay Cost has a great article on why it's dangerous to write off these states because of the dramatic regisration advantage that Dems have over pubs in these four states. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/07/obamas_chicago_campaign.h tml.
Anyway, if Obama's VP choice didn't matter, I am predicting a 49.5-44 popular vote victory and a 306-232 electoral college victory. If the popular vote win for Obama is "only" 48.5-46 on election night, I expect we'll be in a similar place to where were four years ago: at 264 electoral college votes, down 50,000 in Ohio, waiting to see if we got the necessary turnout in Cleveland.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
