Thursday, July 17, 2008

Presidential Election Analysis

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

With all the numbers flying around, it sometimes gets pretty hard to answer a simple question: What does Obama need to do to win the election?

But it's really not that difficult to answer if you make a simple assumption: If Obama loses Pennsylvania or Michigan, then Ohio is already a lost cause, and Obama has lost. (Which means McCain, if he was smart, would focus on PA and MI. Win either and he's home free).

But since Obama is improving his status in PA and MI, we have to assume he wins both. And with his other safe states, that gives him 252 Electoral Votes. So he needs 18 more Electoral Votes from the following states:

Colorado 9
Indiana 11
Iowa 7
Missouri 11
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5
Ohio 20
Virginia 13

So if he wins Ohio, he wins the election. (538 says Obama wins 99% of the time when winning OH/PA/MI).

But if he loses Ohio, here's where the "map expansion" comes into play. First, lets ignore Indiana and Missouri, because if he wins them, he's probably won enough other states to be over the top anyway. And lets give him Iowa, where's he's now up by 10 points, moving him to 259 EVs. So he needs 11 EVs from:

Colorado 9
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5
Virginia 13

Giving him NM leaves him 6 EVs short, so he would need CO or VA to win, and NV to tie.

Lose NM, and he needs 11 EVs from CO (9), NV (5) and VA (13).

So I think here's the combinations of states that will win for Obama:

1) Ohio
2) Iowa, New Mexico, and (Colorado or Virginia)
3) Iowa and Virginia or (Colorado and Nevada)

Let us know what you think.

Comments (24)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
This assumes that everything goes according to plan, and that no bad surprise comes from states that are near the fence, ME, NH or OR for instance. Kerry won NH in 04, but I recall Gore was a few thousand votes shy of winning NH in 2000, and these 4 EV would have been enough to tip the scale...
Reply
1 reply · active 874 weeks ago
ME is not near any fence. Obama is up 14 and 22 in the last 2 polls. There's been 1 poll (SurveyUSA) that showed Oregon under 5 pts. It looks like they poll monthly, so we should know within a week if that 1 close poll was an outlier. Both June polls show Obama with a double-digit lead in NH. I think the national picture has to change drastically for these 3 states to come into play, and if that happens Obama will have already lost.
Reply
Dan in upstate NY's avatar

Dan in upstate NY · 874 weeks ago

This basically looks right, though I think Missouri might be much more in play than you suggest (witness the fact that Obama has dispatched 150 paid staffers to the state). Also, I think that IN, NC, MT, and ND could all be fairly competitive. But clearly, the states that you cite (OH, IA, NM, CO, NV, and VA) are the ones that are MOST in play.

There is one major "fly in the ointment" yet to be determined: McCain's running mate. If he chooses Pawlenty, then it could put MN at risk. (I still think Obama can win MN in that scenario, but it becomes harder.) If he chooses Romney, then it puts MI at risk as well as (potentially) CO and NV (both of those states, especially NV, have larger-than-average Mormon populations). Other potential running mates pose a threat to Obama, but not as big a threat as Pawlenty and Romney. (E.g., Obama can afford to lose Florida [Crist].)

One other oddity that's worth noting: the one electoral vote from Nebaska's 1st CD could go to Obama (even more so if he picks Sebelius from neighboring Kansas as his running mate). We're not likely to see any polling from that lone CD, though, so we won't really know it plays out until election day.
Reply
1 reply · active 873 weeks ago
MN becomes harder, but Obama wins by 4 instead of 8. He's not losing MN and winning Ohio.
Reply
I live in Minnesota and I pray McCain chooses Pawlenty. He would likely have a negligible effect in Minnesota and probably just as small of an effect in the rest of the country. About the only way he would benefit McCain is that he was born within the last century.
Reply
Dan in upstate NY's avatar

Dan in upstate NY · 874 weeks ago

Correction: I meant to say Nebraska's 2nd CD, not the 1st.
Reply
The one thing that I would disagree on is that losing Michigan and Pennsylvania automatically mean that Ohio is lost. If Obama were to lose Michigan and Pennsylvania big (5-6%), then I would agree that Ohio is lost because such margins would indicate a regional/national trend that would move Ohio (and most other scenarios for victory) out of reach.

However, if the Industrial Midwest as a whole stayed competitive, the results in individual states would be dictated by local phenomenom -- namely local advertising, local issues, and local organizing efforts. A bad GOTV effort in MIchigan does not necessarily imply a bad GOTV in Ohio. If the margins in Michigan and PA were around 1%, Ohio would not be a completely lost cause.
Reply
Other than NH (and MI and PA), it seems like the numbers are putting the other Kerry states out of play for McCain. Right now these three seem to be barely in play. If the numbers don't change much by mid-September, I would be shocked at the RNC putting much effort into these three states. That would leave the battleground being the marginal Bush states.

The real kicker in doing any serious analysis is the question of how much has Obama changed the game. Most polls use screening of likely voters that discounts the possibility of record turnout. If Obama succeeds in a dramatic increase in youth and minority voting, that would change which states he is most likely to take.

My own hunch has the Bush states in play in this order: 1) Iowa; 2) Colorado and New Mexico; 3) Ohio; 4) Florida, Nevada, Virginia, and Missouri; 5) North Carolina, Montana, and Indiana. There are other states that could be put in play (e.g. Georgia, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Texas) but if those states come into play enough of the above states should be locks that we are only talking about the margins.
Reply
1 reply · active 874 weeks ago
Well, he just needs the first 2 tiers on your list to win, or just Tier 3 (Ohio).
Reply
He could lose PA & OH and still pick up IA, NM, CO, NV and VA to tie. Not the easy way to go, obviously, but losing either MI or PA (as long as it's not both) is not insurmountable if he does well in the west and VA.
Reply
1 reply · active 874 weeks ago
It's hard to figure out why he would lose PA and win VA. Or more simply, its just hard to see him underpeforming Kerry and losing in PA, with the increased African-American turnout he's going to get.
Reply
What do I think? It won't be close enough to matter; I think that the current electoral map at electoral-vote. com has it right, with some of the "pink" states swinging over. McCain will be lucky to reach 150-180 EVs.
Reply
ollie - I agree with you. The electoral-vote.com map is the one I watch the most. In my opinion 538 relies too much on 'past history' and I think that is a mistake in this race (a race that will be like no other) - also 538 has too many states shown as leaners when they are actually Toss-ups. RCP has been including data from February, which doesn't give a true picture of what is going on right now, The CNN map is a month out of date and useless. Getting back to electoral-vote dot com - any of the PINK states there could flip into Obama BLUE states. It is really too soon to know what the map will look like in October and November. I still think Texas will turn Blue along with many others :)
Reply
Mike in Maryland's avatar

Mike in Maryland · 874 weeks ago

Dan in upstate NY,

I think you are seriously overestimating the Mormon influence in Colorado. According to the LDS site http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html, Colorado is not in the top 10 states with LDS population, and in terms of per cent of population, it is 9th, with just over 70,000, about 2.13% of Colorado's population. Washington state and Oregon have both a higher number of LDS adherents, and are a greater per cent of population who are LDS than Colorado.

You are more correct on the LDS influence in Nevada. The LDS site says there are almost 90,000 adherents in Nevada (8th in number), and they comprise about 7.41% of the state's population (4th in per cent).

I don't have the numbers handy, but if I remember correctly, the fundamentalist, right-wing 'Christian' population around Colorado Springs alone greatly exceeds the LDS adherents (by number and by per cent) in Colorado.

Mike
Reply
I accept only IA, CO, OH, NV and VA in play. Though I see many others going to Obama I try to give McCain as many states as possible.

IA has gotten to know Obama, they're swing but they value respect from their candidates and they'd be proud to send him to the House. CO might go to Obama because with Ken Salazar and others, he's getting a lot of Latino support. It's a very 'military' state though, so if McCain's POW pitch and 'win the war' diatribes fall positively, it'll be tight.

OH will probably go to Obama. A lot is made of the primary result, but remember that in Rodham Clinton's strongest attacks (and with the Gov. for her), Obama still made it a close race. He's smart by knowing that she was monetarily on the ropes and every day she spent in Ohio was a victory for him. McCain doesn't have much strength there.

NV will be close but go to Obama. Somewhat Republican in the past, NV is not an ideologically conservative state. It'll break his way.

VA I give to McCain but Obama has a good chance here. Not quite a 'southern' state, VA has been moving Democrat recently (example, Sens. and Gov.) so it'll be within Obama's reach.

I think FL is McCain's to lose, but he's doing so with his silly oil-drilling plan. I'll give it to him anyway but I think Obama won't need their 27 to win.

Even If McCain keeps TX and most of the other available states, he won't make the 270.

The VP picks can make a difference but only slightly. If McCain picks Pawlenty, that still doesn't put MN into play. At most it's a neutral pick. Romney? The conservatives will be more suspicious and he doesn't pull much in MI (he won there because most barely campaigned). He'd be a bad pick for McCain. If some say, "Ooh, yeah, the economy," Romney the millionaire and Cindy will turn off a lot of people, not to mention he'd make McCain look even worse than he already does (if that's possible) because of his supposed business acumen. Obama? Many choices, that's good for his candidacy.
Reply
Of the three, I'd choose #2: Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado. Of course work where there are networks set up, but put timing and resources to lock in these states as much as possible.

I'd have my people keep their ears on the ground for potential shifts so few states would go uncontested. For example, my wife's from AK and though she hasn't lived there for 5+ years, she's excited that Obama might go there. Visiting places rarely visited is 'news' in itself, isn't it a goal to stay in the news (and control it if possible)? She doesn't expect AK to go Democrat but just the idea that Obama will go there makes her more supportive of him.
Reply
On Countdown tonight Keith Olberman had a segment on the 18 BATTLEGROUND states.
He listed: AK, CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, MI, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI.
Reply
1 reply · active 873 weeks ago
SarahLawrence Scott's avatar

SarahLawrence Scott · 873 weeks ago

I don't think it was one of Olbermann's better segments. Those states are the ones the Obama campaign has been designating as battlegrounds for weeks; it's not a new analysis. And Olbermann was showing a lot of results from the Zogby Interactive polls, which are pretty questionable.

I think there's a good chance this election won't be close. But this thread is about what would be likely Obama win scenarios if it is close, and while I think Matt's analysis is mostly right on, I do think it overestimates the safety of Michigan and underestimates the role the sparsely populated states in the West may play. Michigan has a lot of things that could go wrong that are specific to it. Romney as VP would be a start. And with the traditional concentration of the auto industry in Michigan, I think it's possible for either candidate to shift the race there on policy grounds. (Nevada also has that potential vis a vis Yucca Mountain, although there it's a little more clear than if it comes into play it will hurt McCain.)

Speaking of Nevada, I could envision Obama winning Montana (3) and maybe even North Dakota (3) while losing Nevada and/or New Mexico (if he weakens with Latinos, for example). That really expands the possibilities, since scenarios like Matt's states + Iowa + Colorado + Montana also give a win.
Reply
Scott --

I enjoy reading your insights, and agree with a bunch of what you say. But you've crossed a line here. Keith Olberman is proof positive that brilliance exists in the MSM, and often (for me) watching him is the one safe island of sanity I see all day....so, PRETTY PLEASE -- next time say "Although Keith is the best political journalist on TV, this was not my favourite segmet."

THANKS!!! (biggest grin -- I'm just a fawning fan.....)

Jessica
Reply
Keith Olberman is the last survivor of the Once Great Liberal Media. The NeoCon media era is upon us now, and it is getting bleaker. For example, arguably MSNBC is the best source of balanced coverage, and they are still favoring McCain right now. CNN is pretty bad (I choke everytime I see Glenn Beck's ugly mug on one of the TV 's in the gym). and then of course, there is one of the highest rated networks in the business, the FOX Propaganda Network. Then there is the ungodly sum Rush Limbaugh is being offered because so many people listen to him. It is truly terrifying, That is why I suggested a DemConWatch preview of the three big debates in the fall and how likely they are to be hatchet jobs.

One more note: Rachel Maddow is one of the greats as well. Probably why Keith trusted her to stand in for him on countdown.
Reply
Rachel Maddow will be the next person to get her own show on MSNBC (according to the new president of MSNBC): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/arts/television...
Reply
SarahLawrence Scott's avatar

SarahLawrence Scott · 873 weeks ago

One small note: Keith Olbermann's name has two n's.
Reply
TIM RUSSERT said long ago that "The Democrats could lose Ohio and Florida and still win the election if they won three of the following: CO, NM, NV, AZ.
Reply
I have had a gut feeling this whole time that it will all come down to michigan. "As goes Michigan, so Goes the Nation".
Reply

Comments by