Daily Kos

General Election will come down to 2 or 3 swing states

Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:11:35 PM PDT

I feel there is a misconception around here that Obama will sweep the entire nation and the "swing" states (OH, PA, and this year VA) won't matter.  The reality is they will make or break him.

I am a believer in Howard Dean's 50-State strategy to put Democrats in every office at every level, from local to national.  If we want the country to become progressive, we need Democrats in our state legislatures just as much as we need them in Congress.  Barack Obama's coattails will help with this in November because he will turn previously red states into blue.  As much as this helps downticket races however, the Presidential election will still come down to the same few swing states that it has come down to in the past.

Based on current polls, this is what the general election map looks like for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton against John McCain.  (taken from poblano's awesome site)

 title=

My first assumption is that the "light blue" states of NV, CO, NM, MI, and NJ will vote blue this year. The Interior West states have been itching to flip blue this year.  Obama has not campaigned in Michigan yet he is still leading in that traditionally blue state.  NJ always teeters on the edge but they're solidly Democrat.

If all those states vote for Obama, this is what our map looks like:

 title=

(you can play with that Electoral College map here)

This assumes that the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Virginia will stay red.  The EC count is really close, so if only one of these states votes for Obama, he wins the election.

I've also read in comments that he can win the South because of the African-American bloc.  Well, they always vote for the Democratic candidate by a 90-10 margin anyway.  The only way to win those Southern states is if African-American turnout increases by nearly 40-50%, which is very unlikely.  If Obama were able to pull that off, he'd most likely have fantastic GOTV operations that won him other states as well so the point is moot.

Of course he is much much better off than Clinton who has to win 3 out of 4 of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin.  Obama's broad appeal opens up the map for him, but he still has an uphill battle in those few swing states given that they are already favoring McCain.  We still have another 6 months to go so who knows what will happen, but I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

Tags: general election, obama, electoral college map, polls (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 143 comments

  •  NM, IA, CO, VA (0+ / 0-)

    Keep those in mind.  

    Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States.

    by LarsThorwald on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:14:42 PM PDT

  •  Assumptions (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    davybaby, auntialias

    I think there are more swing states than that. Under no circumstances can we consider Colorado safe for Obama, for example, even though it is competitive. Only Clinton has won it in the last 30 years, in '92, and it's one of the few states where Ross Perot tipped it.

  •  Too early to prognosticate n/t (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    pat208, jeff in nyc, Fawkes, DaNang65, winsock

    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -Voltaire

    by PsiFighter37 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't think Obama will win Ohio or Florida. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    davybaby

    Florida will be tough for any Democrat. Ohio is not a good fit for Obama. My path for Obama to win the presidency is for him to win all of Kerry's states and then Iowa, Nevada and Colorado. Pennsylvania is a must-win and it is a state Kerry carried. Not an easy task for him but do-able.

    He will not put the South in play.

    •  Ohio better than 50% chance (0+ / 0-)

      but Florida for Obama would need a national tide.

      My three swing states are: MO, OH and ... TX!

    •  Ohio is like Brown vs. DeWine (0+ / 0-)

      Obama is similar to Brown in terms of voting record (solid liberal and doesn't hide it) while McCain and DeWine are both rubberstamp conservatives who pretend to be moderates.

      The big challenge is stopping the new message that's permeated Redstate and Rush: that the state's economic problems are somehow the Democrats' fault, even though it was 10+ YEARS since a Democrat won almost ANY major statewide race.

      It's dishonest, just like saying that Michigan's problems suddenly started with Granholm took office.

      Funny how we seldom hear how SC, MS, AL and their 6%ish unemployments are at all related to ages of solid Republican rule.

      Ahmadinejad is a conservative

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        BlueEngineerInOhio

        In that same way, do you think that Kerry's loss in 2004 there was due to him actually being a liberal but he tried to portray himself as a moderate?

        •  Maybe part of it (0+ / 0-)

          It was more than anything due to Rove's "72-hour strategy" badly outpacing any means that the Dems had of putting boots on the ground.  Bush also managed to dodge Bob Taft at basically every turn along the campaign trail.

          It was just a hard time for the state Dems too, no overall party organization (Jerry Springer, for God's sake, was being considered as a gubernatorial candidate) and the tide of state GOP scandals hadn't started to crest at all.

          By the way, I meant Alaska, not Alabama, in the states above, sorry.

          Ahmadinejad is a conservative

          by BlueEngineerInOhio on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  he doesn't need to care (0+ / 0-)

      We don't NEED Ohio or Florida.
      We need these 5 states:
      NM,IA,NH,WI,NV.
      Plus ANY other state of your choice.

      "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

      by ge0rge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and that best bet (0+ / 0-)

        is swing state PA which favors McCain

        •  PA *is not* a swing state (0+ / 0-)

          I was counting PA (and Michigan) as blue already when
          I said we needed 1 more state (in addition to the 5 swing states),
          which we do.
          This will have to be a state that NEITHER Kerry nor Gore carried.
          The fact that it will swing from then to now
          (which PA will NOT) is what makes it a swing state.

          "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

          by ge0rge on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Pennsylvania should be blue (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RonV

    Obama should be able to win Penn...in the GE.

    •  My thought, too. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MKS

      PA went blue four the last four Presidential elections.

      Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

      Plus 21 for our candidate.

      "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

      by RonV on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WAY early (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, pat208

    Let's go with the one who would be the best President this time and see what's up with the ole USA.  It might fail, but it might be change the rules too...

  •  Based on current polls is the key phrase (5+ / 0-)

    McCain is self destructing.

    He polls well because the voters haven't figured out that he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. They think he's a maverick who will get us out of Iraq.

    Once they get to know him, and hear him argue against everything Obama says you can expect a blow out. He is Bob Dole without viagra.

    Shameless Plug: Check out my band Losers of the Year we rock if I do say so myself.

    by DeanDemocrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:28:24 PM PDT

  •  The Gipper was chipper (0+ / 0-)

    McCain just sounds confused

  •  Obama will win PA. (0+ / 0-)

    Snag CO, NM, and most likely NV. That is enough to get him over the hump.

    OH is 50/50 at this point. Neither Dem will win FL.

    I am not gay. I have never been gay.

    by MJJLWolf on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:33:51 PM PDT

  •  McCain hasn't faced anything yet (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    auntialias, Pinecone, heliosfootball

    The numbers right now are not really worth much, because Obama/Clinton has not had a chance to start defining McCain. Once that happens, and his war position becomes absolutely clear, I think his numbers will start dropping. Also, the media will start digging into him a bit more. LOTS of time left.

    "For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link as that we all inhabit this small planet...We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

    by gradatbing on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM PDT

  •  Clinton doesn't need 3 out of 4 (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Valhalla

    because she adds Arkansas and perhaps West Virginia to the mix, as well as Pennsylvania.  The bottom line is that either Obama wins in  a landslide, or loses.  Clinton, on the other hand, can win Ohio and/or Florida.  Obama can't.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

  •  Too early for any of this (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    chrississippi, Woody, ge0rge, Fawkes

    As long as Obama gets the nomination, McCain's numbers will PLUMMET in August-September-October. This is a realigning election, and polls this early don't reflect the huge shakeups that will come to the fore late. That McCain isn't noticeably ahead during this Dem bloodbath is heartening in itself. Watch him fall like a stone as soon as it's a two-person race.

    How was Obama polling against Clinton back in summer 2007? Fall 2007? Heck, December 2007?

    The Republican Party is neither pro-republic nor pro-party. Discuss!

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:35:00 PM PDT

    •  I've been ready too much Digby lately . . . (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Woody, dvogel001, Pinecone, Fawkes, madhav

      and she's convincingly morose about us beating McBush, but frankly I'm with you.

      The country is going to be in the early depths of a BushCo recession, gas will be $4/gal, and even more people are going to be wondering WTF are we still doing in Iraq. The idea that McCane is going to totter his way into the White House with his lips stuck to Dubya's ass is grade-A histrionics.

      I'm not predicting it will be easy, but Obama is going to rise above the predicable Republican slime pit and win in some places we really couldn't even imagine. People are absolutely feed up with where we are as a nation; McCain is not getting the steering wheel.

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      I think this is a realignment election and Obama is going to keep gaining support though more and more of the population.  He has already made some inroads amongst people who normally never vote Democrat, I think he will expand into those areas in a big way.  I would think this is true even if the republicans were running a strong candidate.  I thought McCain would be a strong candidate but he seems far weaker than I anticipated.  He seems to be developing a knack for saying something outlandish every few days.  Just consider these last few weeks....

      1.  100 years of war in Iraq!
      1.  Given my age VP choice is essential
      1.  I don't know if condoms stop the spread of Aids...
      1.  I don't really understand the economy...

      I can't see how is going to possibly come across well in debates if he makes statements like this unforced when he is not yet getting strong competition from the democrats.  Consider the number of states Obama is polling close in, I think he has a chance in just about all of those....

  •  10 states for McLame (0+ / 0-)

    The usual suspects and nothing more.
    Welcome to the rout.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM PDT

    •  Yes similar to GOldwater losing in '64 (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Arnie

      Goldwater Obama 2008

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:34:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you're right, but ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... I don't see either side winning Goldwater-style electoral blowouts anymore. The country's just too polarized. We shouldn't underestimate the allure of God, Gays, and Guns to the Red Staters. That sentiment  should be good for at least 130 EVs to the Republican candidate, regardless.

        Obama will do well to take 24-26 states and perhaps 50-53% of the popular vote.

        I'm a bear of very little brain. (With apologies to A. A. Milne)

        by Arnie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:33:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  over 40% do NOT vote, people align themselves (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Fawkes

    with different groups and causes each election

    - am I a pissed of conservative Catholic? a pissed off unemployed over 35 barely employed worker serf? ...

    and a million other things happen or don't happen,

    AND you're gonna predict that 2 or 3 states will

    decide it  ???

    oh god, please.

    well, if you can get the CHUMPS of DC to hire you, good luck to you... it won't be any worse than pissing money away on the loser gurus of the last 4 decades.

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but i'm just not buying it (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Woody, Fawkes, paintitblue

    there's no reason to believe that just because the last two elections were fought in a few swing states doesn't mean it will be like that in 08. There are so many other variables to consider: a huge cash advantage, an energized Democratic electorate, Obama's appeal in the west, changing demographics, etc.

    Do I think it's likely that Obama wins states like North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, North Carolina, and South Carolina? Not likely, but it can be done. But not if we write it off.

    •  True he is currently ahead in ND (3 EVs) (0+ / 0-)

      but significantly behind in all of the rest you mentioned except SC where he is within the margin of error...

      http://www.electoral-vote.com/...

      Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

      by dvogel001 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Given the likelihood that the Religious Wrong (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Arnie, paintitblue

      will sit this one out, you're exactly right about "it can be done." Every one of those state's Republican lean is underpinned by activist evangelicals. If they're at home, we're winning.

      •  Are you sure they'll sit it out? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        davybaby

        The Religious Wrong may not like McCain, but they'll like Obama even less. Once their masters start trotting out all that Muslim/Abortion/Socialism stuff, the sheep will fall right in line. They'll be grumbling, but they'll turn out to vote.

        I'm a bear of very little brain. (With apologies to A. A. Milne)

        by Arnie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:48:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even if he wins other states (0+ / 0-)

      Even if he wins a few other smaller states, he'll still need to pick up either Pennsylvania or Ohio, which he is a better chance of winning over let's say NC or SC.  That's the whole point of the diary (play with the EC map I linked to if you don't believe me).

      I'm not saying he writes it off.  If he does well in red states, he would have a small chance of winning them and he would definitely help downticket races.

      •  I don't think thats necessarily true (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        paintitblue, newdem1960

        This isn't a normal race where one candidate is conservative, the other liberal, and they fight for the center and to get their base out. I think Obama appeals to some who are more conservative than some potential McCain supporters. Basically, I think there's a tendency to assume that states are on a linear scale from more Dem to Rep and thus depending on the overall popular vote, states will fall into line depending on how dem they are.

        But there are many other factors to consider. Take for example, small western states like Montana. They went for Bush big time. But if Obama can capitalize on his western appeal perhaps he can flip some of these states. A state with only a few hundred thousand voters may be easier to flip. Large battleground states like Florida, however, are very difficult to flip. Kerry lost Florida by nearly 400,000 votes. Not even 500,000 people voted in montana.

        I think its pretty clear that Obama has at least some problem with Appalachian voters. Perhaps he will lose Ohio and Pennsylvania as a result. But that doesn't mean he loses the elections. Obama's 50 state-strategy will allow for many possible routes to 270.

        •  Right about Appalachia (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          davybaby

          But if Obama can figure out how to reach those Appalachian whites, that will change everything in Ohio, Penn, Va, WVa, KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, MS, and even Appalachia-like Ozarks, with Ark and Missouri -- a landslide. If he can't do it, we lose.

          So agree that it's either impossible for Obama to win a close race, or he'll win in a landslide. Fortunately, close elections are very rare. Two in a row was extraordinary.

          So I can't see another close election, especially not in a change year, with a black man or a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket, and a failed war and a failing economy as the Repub record. The emotions and the issues are so heavyweight and potentially explosive that the campaign will likely end in a landslide.

          As I said, close elections are rare:

          Electoral votes
          '96   379/159
          '92   370/168
          '88   426/111
          '84   525/13
          '80   489/49
          '76   297/240   Carter/Ford was close
          '72   520/17
          '68   301/191   Nixon/Humphrey was close
          '64   586/52
          '60   303/219   Kennedy/Nixon was close
          '56   457/73
          '52   442/89
          '48   303/189/12  
          Truman/Dewey/Thurmond-Dixiecrat was much closer than the EVs make it appear
          '44, '40, '36, '32
          FDR was never in a close election.

          •  Obama can lose all of Appalachia and still win (0+ / 0-)

            All he'd lose relative to Kerry would be Penn. (which I don't think he'll lose, Dem registration is now at 50%) But if he did, he could win by picking up some of these additional states:
            Colorado
            Nevada
            Iowa
            Nebraska
            North Dakota
            South Dakota
            Kansas
            Montana
            Virginia (only a small part is appalachia, he doesn't need to carry it to win VA)
            North Carolina
            South Carolina

            Obama does seem to have a weakness in Appalachia, but he also has strengths elsewhere. If we want to win, we have to stop thinking about this election in terms of the past two.

            •  Take a look at this link (0+ / 0-)

              It didn't make me happy, but it's VERY interesting stuff about the impact of Appalachia. Try to get past the headline, it's perhaps a bit dated. The analysis is forward looking, if disturbing to us as Obama supporters. And some of it bears on GA, probably of particular interest to you.

              •  I've actually read that before, (0+ / 0-)

                and I think its mostly true. Obama is weak in Appalachia, but it doesn't concern me too much. In terms of the primary, I think we all know Hillary has an advantage in  a lot of the upcoming primary states. But it still won't help her win.

                In terms of the GE, I think its also fine. Appalachia seems to be Obama's main weakness. But national Dem candidates always seem to have this weakness. Obama makes up for this with his strength in the west and parts of the deep south. In 2004, Kerry wrote off most of these states anyway, except for PA (and WV, but only for a short time).

                If Obama can't hold PA in the GE as a result, he can easily make up for it elsewhere. Plus, I don't think McCain is particularly strong in Appalachia anyway, so I do think there's room for Obama to make inroads once Clinton leaves the race.

            •  If he can't win Pennsylvania (0+ / 0-)

              he is so not going to win the Carolinas or Virginia either.

      •  LBJ got 61% of the vote in '64 (0+ / 0-)

        it translated to 90% of the EC, Goldwater won like 8 states.

        Goldwater Obama 2008

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:35:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is extremely premature (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Asherd

    The Democrats don't even have a nominee yet.  McCain has yet to experience any head on attacks like Clinton and Obama are taking.  Swing state talk is extremely premature.

  •  I think you're right (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jeff in nyc, madhav

    I agree with the 50-state strategy but I also think it will take a while before we see results in a general election.  We should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.  

    While I wholly endorse Obama volunteers working hard in Florida and the rest of the south, it's not smart to focus on those states.  With a worsening economy, Obama needs to keep a strong focus on Ohio & Penn in the General Election.  Ideally, Obama could send surrogates to Florida to force McCain to campaign there more than he wants to. And Obama needs to make the election about the Economy, Health Care, Judgment and Change.  He can win -- he just needs to be careful not to let McCain and the GOP set the frame or decide the states in play.

    Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

    by Valhalla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM PDT

  •  I want Texas blue... (0+ / 0-)

    Oh, what a wonderful piece of justice it would be to have Bush's home state vote for Obama.  It probably won't happen, but who knows.  With Travis County, Harris County, Dallas County, and Tarrant County all going blue (and maybe Bexar County as well) who knows.

    This year, the swing states will determine how big of an Obama blow-out victory it will be.

    Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come -- Victor Hugo

    by BasharH on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM PDT

  •  Barack Obama will win big. (0+ / 0-)

    He'll lose a few states that have been and perhaps always will be red, but he will also win several red states, along with most of the swing states, except, perhaps, for Florida.  It won't even be close.  When he gets the nomination, I'm making reservations for a hotel stay in DC; I'm going to see Barack Obama's inauguration!

    "The man and the hour have met!" Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States, Barack Obama!

    by PittsburghPete on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:36:13 PM PDT

  •  I have a feeling McCain is a horrible debater! (0+ / 0-)

    aka sitting duck.  McCain will get cruxified if he continues with these gaffes.  

    If the Republicans hate him, he's gotta be good!

    by brettjay on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:57 PM PDT

  •  There are a lot of silly assumptions here (0+ / 0-)

    But the only way to back THAT up is to
    put some money on them.  My position
    is that personalities just don't matter
    that much.  Gore and Kerry were very
    different candidates (southerner vs.
    Boston Brahmin) but they carried THE SAME
    20 states EXCEPT 3.  THOSE 3 are the
    swingin'est swing states (lately)
    and they are Iowa, New Hampshire, and
    New Mexico.  Our next closest carry
    in the last two elections was Wisconsin.
    THAT IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than Pennsylvania.
    I DON'T CARE WHAT your polls say or
    HOW bad Obama loses to Hillary there:
    PENNSYLVANIA IS RELIABLY blue.
    Pennsylvania IS NOT a swing state and
    neither is Michigan, no matter HOW upset
    they may be about their DNC delegation.
    ANY state that Kerry and Gore BOTH carried
    IS MUCH MORE reliably blue THAN ANY state
    that neither Kerry nor Gore carried.

    Posting a whole bunch of PICTURES does
    not CHANGE anything.  New Jersey IS NOT
    "light blue".   Presidentially, New Jersey is as blue
    as Mississippi is red.  It does NOT matter
    how close it is: what matters is whether that
    closes actually translates into uncertainty
    about a changing outcome.  In New Jersey's
    case it most definitely does not.

    In addition to the states that came up
    different in the last two elections, you
    would want "our" closest and "their" closest
    over that time; since so theirs was Nevada, these are the 5 swing states:
    NM,IA,NH,WI,NV.

    If Gore had won all those then he would've
    won without Florida.  But Kerry would not
    have because the 2000 census moved 7
    CD/EV from blue to red.  SO WE NEED
    ANOTHER STATE.  We will HAVE to swing ONE
    more state, whether it currently "is" swing
    or not.  Smaller would obviously be easier
    and therefore better.  Which one you would
    pick is up to you.  I imagine Obama will go
    for lots of them on the grounds that any one
    would work.

    "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

    by ge0rge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:02:19 PM PDT

  •  People who aren't yet paying attention (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    paintitblue, madhav

    (which is still a majority, even this year--people think "the election's in November" and there's no reason to start thinking about it before Labor Day) are still imagining the McCain from 8 years ago. Even Pat Buchanan was lamenting today that the years have taken a toll on him. Put doddering, short-fused,  "misspeaking" about Sunni and Shia McCain up against a vigorous, sharp, and knowledgeable Obama in a debate and McCain's numbers will plummet.

    My heart belongs to Kucinich...

    by Wit Whither Wilt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:05:00 PM PDT

    •  I assumed and correct me if I'm wrong (0+ / 0-)

      that because Obama and Clinton are in the news so much, voters know who they are.  This is from my perception as a political junkie with no TV though, so take that with a grain of salt.

  •  Does this dairy say this election is going to be (0+ / 0-)

    just like the last few ?

    If so it misses the mark by a city block.

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM PDT

Permalink | 143 comments